CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Introduction
Project portfolio management (PPM) is a set of business practices and a process that
allows organizations to control projects and achieve organizational objectives as a
strategic portfolio and confirm the arrangement of programs and projects. This improved
the efficiency and performance of the project. PPM is a combination of project
management and project programme management. In projects, the use of PPM was very
helpful to make projects more progressive. Vinopal (2012) concluded that PPM made
projects more successful and gave a proper direction for achieving the desired goals.
Study analyzed the gap of projects success with or without PPM. This made projects
success easy to achieve by adopting specified direction. In PPM project efficiency and
performance were directly related with stakeholders who directly participate in the
project activities. How performance of projects in PPM can be improved by stakeholder
engagement? In PPM the success achieved by following the PPM traditions.
Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, and requirements to achieve
project success. According to the Project Management Institute (PMBOK, 2013), project
management processes were guided by five steps: initiation, planning, executing,
monitoring, controlling, and closing. Most of the literature focused on people to follow
the critical practices for project success. This also focused on quality of human
interaction, motivation and decision making practices for project success. There was a
performance gap of adoption of critical factors in different organizations (Davies,
2002).In project management, project managers interaction and decision making were
essential for project success. For good decision making, stakeholders were involved in
the projects which lead projects towards the success. Now the question was that why
stakeholders were important in decision making in projects and what were their role?
Decision making and negotiation was important for both single and portfolio projects.
More than two projects were managed in portfolio. This era required multiple projects to
obtain the benefit and success of project portfolio management.

The above literature described about the PPM working traditions, goal clarity and was
specific to work according to the requirements. It made projects more flourishing in
PPM. Young and Conboy (2013) concluded that current body of PPM knowledge
suffered from a number of conceptual problems and highlighted issues. These problems
were lack of cumulative traditions, clarity, parsimony and applicability. Further they
analyzed the performance gap between different organizations. Problems occurred in
PPM due to gap of work which was not fulfilled by proper processes. Goal clarity and
working style of project team matched with the project needs. This leads towards good
project performance and high success level.
Project portfolio management success was also related with the strategies which had been
used for the projects successful completion. Strategies had direct impact on the project
portfolio management success. Amarl et al (2009) described that strategies improved the
progress of the project or organization which reduced the problems, minimize risk and
cost, reduce threats and improve performance. Study measured the gap between different
organizations performance level by using different strategies (Amarl, Antonio, Aroujo,
&Madalena, 2009). By applying good strategies in projects according to the project
requirements, it provided better results for PPM success. Selection of strategy was the
part of the planning. Project planning made many things clear like which strategy should
be used for the selected project.
Planning of project was the first and the most important phase in the project portfolio
management. Plan-do-check-action planning cycle explained in management to improve
the organization performance. Planning cycle defined the communication at each level of
the organization to made projects successful. All planning requirements which were
essential for single project also required for multiple projects in project portfolio. Study
also discussed the terms, project breakdown structure, organization breakdown structure
and information breakdown structure. Planning requirements are not only for single
projects but also for project portfolios (Platje, Seidel and Wadman, 1994). Planning phase
closely related with the decision making process. Planning and decision making played
the vital role in the project portfolio management.

Decision making was the central part of the project portfolio management. Good decision
making always helped to achieve the project success. In some critical situations, a
committee required accurate decisions by project stakeholders. Committee also made
decisions about the project portfolio selection and other necessary issues. Sometimes
decision makers did not agree on one decision, they had differences on their own basis,
and then decision support systems helped decision makers to reach on some consensus. In
the same situation project analysis and support system were also helpful for decision
makers to make decisions correctly. Study by Ghasemzadeh and Archer (2000 )
mentioned some techniques which were helpful in decision making. Decision making
was helpful when all stakeholders agreed on one decision. Clashes in decision making
created many errors in the projects. Stakeholders engagement improved the efficiency of
the work in the project portfolio management. Processes in project portfolio management
were also essential in goal achievement. Goal and role clarity of stakeholders were
significant for gaining the good performance in PPM. Stakeholders involvement had a
great effect on the PPM. Internal and external stakeholders directly and indirectly
affected the PPM success positively.
In every project and portfolio processes, stakeholders had significant importance.
Stakeholders followed the specified processes to obtain the desired goal. Existence of
organization was associated with a higher rate of adoption of processes and tools that
come close to risk management. Study of Riaz and Micheal (2001) measured the gap
between highly adopted and low adopted processes and tools of risk management. Some
differences identified across various industrial sectors and different organizational
cultures. They also mentioned the results of the high and low level adoption of processes
(Raz & Micheal, 2001). Different organization cultures also had significant effect on the
project portfolio management success. Human skills were always helpful for the project
portfolio management success.
Human resource management had important part in the project success. Completion of
any project was impossible without human resource management. Human skills of
project manager had greatest influence on project management practices. Technical and
communication skills of stakeholders had much influence on PPM. The difference
4

measured between career path of project manager and operational manager (Sabaa,
2001). Study supported the above statement that human resource had great impact on the
project portfolio management success. Project managers were directly engaged with the
project success. Skills of project managers were influenced positively, which were useful
for project portfolio management success. Stakeholders engagement had much influence
on the project portfolio management success.
Stakeholders had great value in the project portfolio management success. There were
different kinds of stakeholders. According to this study managers were involved in the
important projects and procedures. Primary stakeholders of the firm treated with high
appreciation while secondary stakeholders were some time ignored due to some loss or
wrong decision. To increase the corporate social relations, all stakeholders like
employees, customers and shareholders should provide equal rights, so that all of these
can work better with high motivation (Clarkson, 1995). Stakeholder engagement was
vital but all types of stakeholders should give equal rights to get involved in the project
portfolio management success. It was necessary to give right of equality to all
stakeholders to achieve the good performance of project portfolio management.
The literature highlighted various factors affecting the project portfolio management
performance. One important element was involvement of internal and external
stakeholders. Involvement of stakeholders enhanced the performance of PPM. Beringer,
Jonas & Kock (2013) found positive results about the impact of some internal
stakeholders on the PPM success. The underlying study illustrates the impact of internal
and external stakeholders on project portfolio management success. In literature there
was a gap related to the impact of external stakeholders on the PPM success. In present
study results were based on both internal and external stakeholders in PPM and their
impact on PPM success. Therefore present study filled the gap that exists in the literature.

Background of the Problem

Literature explained the positive impact of internal stakeholders engagement on the
project portfolio management success (Beringer et al., 2013). Relationship value of
external stakeholders like customers showed positive result for PPM success (Voss &
5

Kock, 2013), but the impact of internal and external stakeholders engagement were not
still measured collectively. One major reason is that this study was not still verified in
Pakistan in this context.

Statement of the Problem

Beringer et al (2013) contributed the moderating effect of role clarity of internal
stakeholders on the success of PPM stating it positive. However, Voss and Kock (2013)
identified that the effect of role clarity for external stakeholders on PPM success is
required to be investigated.
An empirical research was thus required to be discovered and quantify the impact of both
types of stakeholders on project portfolio management success with distinct effect of their
role clarity.
For this study IT industry was selected because of the distinguishing portfolios were
managed in IT sector, following Beringer et al (2013) and Frey et al (2011).
In light of the above, this study examined the project portfolio management success in
managing diversified and complicated projects and impact of stakeholders engagement
on Project Portfolio Management success in IT Industry, Pakistan.

Research Questions
In context of Pakistans IT Industry, the following research questions have been
developed for the study:
1. What is the effect of internal stakeholders engagement on project
portfolio management success?
2. What is the effect of external stakeholders engagement on project
portfolio management success?
3. What is the effect of customers engagement on project portfolio
management success?
4. What is the effect of suppliers engagement on project portfolio
management?
6

5. What is the effect of internal stakeholder's engagement with moderating

variable role clarity on project portfolio management success?
6. What is the effect of external stakeholder's engagement with moderating
variable role clarity on project portfolio management success?
7. What is the effect of customers engagement with moderating variable
role clarity on project portfolio management success?
8. What is the effect of suppliers engagement with moderating variable role
clarity on project portfolio management success?

Rationale of the Study

Impact of internal stakeholders engagement on PPM success had been measured with the
moderating effect of role clarity (Beringer et al., 2013). Relationship value of customers
also found positive with PPM success (Voss & Kock, 2013). Find the impact of external
stakeholders engagement especially customers and suppliers on PPM success had been
recommended by Beringer et al (2013). Further based on the preliminary survey in the IT
industry of Lahore, Pakistan, this study learned that finding the impact of both the
internal and external stakeholders engagement on PPM success would be a value
addition in literature.

Objectives of the Study

Study sets the following objectives:

1. To determine the effect of internal stakeholders engagement on project portfolio

management success.
2. To determine the effect of external stakeholders engagement on project portfolio
management success.
3. To determine the effect of customers engagement on project portfolio
management success.
4. To determine the effect of suppliers engagement on project portfolio
management success.
5. To determine the effect of internal stakeholder's engagement with moderating
variable role clarity on project portfolio management success.
6. To determine the effect of external stakeholder's engagement with moderating
variable role clarity on project portfolio management success.
7. To determine the effect of customers engagement with moderating variable role
clarity on project portfolio management success.
8. To determine the effect of suppliers engagement with moderating variable role
clarity on project portfolio management success.

Overview of the Study

Chapter 1 conferred with introduction of the research objective and its importance in the
IT sector of Pakistan.

Chapter 2 deals with explaining past studies related to the variables of study. The
literature is surveying facilitated in understanding the associations among variables.
Chapter 3 discussed the research methodology adopted for analyzing the data gathered
for the study. This section comprises sampling techniques, statistical techniques and
details on the instrument adopted to gather data from respondents.
Chapter 4 explained the analysis and result portion of the study. This section deals with
descriptive statistics to analyze sample properties and inferential statistics to analyze the
association of variables under study.
Chapter 5 is the last section of the study and deals with findings of the study and
inferences made in the light of past studies. This section also highlights the major
limitations in the study and recommendations for future research in this area.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Project Management

According to PMBOK (2013) project management is the application of knowledge, skills
and techniques to execute projects effectively and efficiently. In project management,
10

projects were handled and preceded with the help of human resource. Human resource is
essential factor in project management. In fact for project success, skills, abilities and the
efforts of human resource were as important as the other important factors. HRM was one
of the imperative elements in project management success. HRM was the most
significant element in the organization success. Study analyzed the gap between project
and organization success due to HRM (Belout, & Gauvreau, 2004). Project Management
was an effective method for accomplishing the goals of a project. HRM and projects are
main part of the project management. There was an explanation about project and project
management. Projects are closely related to the project management. In fact project
management was incomplete without successful projects. There was a link between
project and project management.
Study of Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) explored the relationship between project and project
management activities. Project management included many things which made any
project successful or unsuccessful. Many internal and external involvements were
prejudiced the project management in a positive way. Project management had to face
many economic and financial aspects; it had complex areas which cannot be easily
handled. All these factors collectively moved towards project management success. Right
project can succeed without the success of project management, but for successful project
management there is always a need of successful projects (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). For
successful projects, there was a need of their own specifications. Project management
played important role in the success of projects, but project requirements were the main
point to be focused. Some other factors also affected the project success and project
needs; there was a need of all those things which were compulsory or related to the
project success. These elements are time, cost and scope.
Project success was depending on many factors which made project easier to achieve.
Four important factors were discussed in the following study of White & Fortune (2002),
which made projects successful. Project success and failure were two aspects of projects.
For Project's complete perfection, all the important factors should be added. Because of
these projects results as a success, but due to some imperfections projects always end up
as a failure. Four most important factors (realistic schedule, adequate resources, clear
11

objective and support from senior management) affected most of the project success.
Study measured the gap between performance of different projects which lead towards
the project success or failure (White & Fortune, 2002). This study adopted the four
important elements to assess the project performance. By following these four techniques
project was leading towards the good performance. By ignoring these elements projects
faced errors or imperfections in work. These factors also reduced the uncertainty
management in project management.
Chances of risk always present in project management. In fact in each business and large
or small projects, in every case risk was always there. Uncertainty was the situation when
something was going wrong in the project and some kind of error occurred at any time.
Uncertainty management was important element of the project management. Uncertainty
management was an approach of facilitated assimilation with project management earlier
in the Project Life Cycle (PLC) after that threat sloping Project Risk Management (PRM)
process affected the PPM. There were a gap measured between the project risk
management and uncertainty management. Further study was recommended on
uncertainty management (Ward, & Chapman, 2003). Study explained that uncertainty
management handled and controlled at the start of Project Management especially in
project life cycle. Project was moved towards the project risk management process and
then uncertainty management. There was a gap mentioned between project risk
management and project uncertainty management which reduced the level of
performance. Project risk can be avoided and reduced with the help of project
stakeholders. Whenever project associated persons or stakeholders did not achieve
projects objectives, projects had to face many challenges. Involvement of many valued
and essential stakeholders made projects successful. There was a need of stakeholder's
engagement to reduce the risk in the projects.
Project management was related to a lot of essential knowledge and management areas,
which made clear path for the achievement of desired goals. Main processes of
management and engagement of stakeholders made projects easier to achieve its success.
Adoption of different techniques was making clear understanding of the project
requirements and achievements. Project Management knowledge and skills made more
12

successful green construction projects. 10 challenges for Green Construction Project

(GCP) mitigating by important skills of management like, schedule, cost, HRM,
planning, communication and stakeholder. Study measured the gap between traditional
construction projects and green construction projects (Hwang, & Ng, 2013). Project
management knowledge areas provided knowledge on the different management
elements like communication management, stakeholder management, human resource
management and others. Above study mentioned 10 challenges for green construction
projects which were solved out by using management key areas. One of the important
knowledge areas of project management is stakeholder management, which directly
linked with the project management activities. Old and new projects had difference just
on the basis of management skills and techniques. In previous time there was no
availability of knowledge as in new time. By using management techniques and skills
with the help of stakeholders every kind of challenge can be faced in project and project
achievements. Knowledge management and stakeholder management also related to the
leadership which was helpful for good decision making.
Customer knowledge management is the part of stakeholder management and this made
clear directions for the project development and successful completion. Project
management techniques and stakeholder's skills also enhanced the decision making
process. Project management was also dealing with the leadership styles and decision
making approaches. Knowledge management was important area of project management
and was related to the customers to improve the performance of projects and reduced the
complications of the projects. Customer knowledge management was the idea of present
time which leads the projects in a very flourishing way. Study of Yang et al (2014)
analyzed that adoption of knowledge leadership was connected with the customer
knowledge management. The implementation of customer knowledge management
influenced organizational performance via project performance. Results mentioned that
positive relationship between customer knowledge management and project performance
depends on project complexity. Improvement in the customer knowledge management
enhanced the project performance which leads towards organizational performance
(Yang, Huang, & Hsu, 2014). Involvement of customers in the projects made project
outcomes effective in a positive manner. Customers are the part of the external
13

stakeholders. The effectiveness of the customer knowledge management in project

management was mentioned. Customer's engagement increased the project management
success. Complex projects had low level of relationship between customer knowledge
management and project success. There was a need of strong relationship between
customers and project management.
Project management have 10 project management knowledge areas like integration
management, scope management, communication management, time management, cost
management, quality management, human resource management, procurement
management and recently introduced the stakeholder management directly exaggerated
the progress of projects in the project management (PMBOK, 2013). By improving
human skills and management practices good performance can be achieved. Human
resource and management policies were needed in the project management. Stakeholders
directly and indirectly involved in projects. Human resource in projects like customers,
line managers and project manager, directly affect the project success. How stakeholders
engagement improved the PPM success? PPM was a huge field of project management.
More than two projects handled at the same time by same management, it was called
Project Portfolio Management.

2.2 Project Portfolio Management

Project portfolio management is a strategic prioritization methodology employed to
analyze and manage current or proposed projects within an organization (PMBOK,
2013). There were different definitions of the project portfolio management in the
research according to the need and perception of different authors. There were different
definitions of portfolio management. These definitions related the portfolio management
with different management areas to find the relation and impact of portfolio management.
Portfolio management was a different and single area so this should be dealt
independently; this provides better results for progress (Stretton, 2012). There were a lot
of benefits and positive aspects of the project portfolio management in every field where
projects were handled in portfolio management. According to this study adoption of
portfolio management gave better results for good performance and appropriate results.

14

Project portfolio management was also helpful in reducing errors and increasing the
productivity of the projects.
Project Portfolio Management reduced many issues in the projects by monitoring all the
projects collectively and another good thing was that it reduced the time of project
completion as well as reduced the cost of project. Results of the study of Catherine
&Robert (2010) explained that increase in adoption of PPM level had a positive impact
on the return on the projects in the portfolio and had a negative impact on the number of
project related problems. There was a gap between problem solving and success level in
different companies by adopting PPM (Calderini, Reyck, Cockayne, Lockett, Moura &
Sloper, 2005). According to this literature adoption of PPM increased the performance of
the projects. PPM reduced the problems and gave better results for the improvements of
projects. Project portfolio management was successful in the project management in
present research. PPM reduced many issues in the projects by monitoring all the projects
collectively. Another good outcome was that it reduced the time of project completion as
well as reduced the cost of project. Further researcher explained that project portfolio
management made it possible to achieve the strategic goals in a successful manner.
Project portfolio management was a field in which projects were monitored and
completed for improved performance in comparison with previous project performance.
Project performance was enhanced by introducing the project portfolio management in
the organization. Organizations gave value to project portfolio management in achieving
their strategic goals. It was better to start with improvement and development of portfolio
processes. There was need of good collaboration and interaction between portfolio
managers to discuss the project processes. Integration system was established to select
and screen the project proposals (Filippov, Mooi, &Weg, 2012). The project managers
had important role in the project portfolio management success. Interaction and
collaboration of project managers with other team members made projects successful.
Project managers are the main stakeholders in the project portfolio management. For
organizations development and improvement, every organization tried to implement new
strategies in their own company to enhance the productivity. Stakeholder's engagement
required to increase the PPM success.
15

This was important for organizations to make new and innovative strategies because they
had to compete with other organizations in the market. Projects were also handled in
other sectors like service and manufacturing companies in the same way as in IT sector.
Project portfolio management was also used in the manufacturing and service industry.
Project portfolio management made projects successful by using different rules and
techniques. This depended on the nature and requirement of the projects. Study explained
the relationship between project portfolio management and competitive advantage in
service and manufacturing industries. Dynamic capability used in PPM and compare the
results of service industry and manufacturing companies. PPM enhanced the outcomes
with dynamic capability (Killen & Hunt, 2010). Dynamic capability was also used to
increase the performance of the projects in the service and manufacturing industry. Some
other abilities and capabilities also discussed in the studies to augment the impact of the
project portfolio management. Proper techniques, skills, procedures and abilities made
project portfolio management successful in any area of implementation.
Organizations made collaboration with project portfolio management, and improved
results for getting good performance in a successful way. Organizations demand good
results to achieve the organizations desired goals. Killen et al (2008) indicated that the
project portfolio management and organizational capabilities improved the organizations
success and enabled to get advantage from the other organizations in this competition.
Study explored that managers enhanced competitive advantage by using their abilities,
procedures and appropriate strategies. They also increased the investment to make PPM
stronger. Learning investment and organizational capabilities can be improved by skilled
managers and planned work (Killen, Hunt, &Kleinschmidt, 2008). According to the study
different kinds of strategies, processes and organizational capabilities had been used for
the successful project portfolio management. Involvement of project managers was
necessary for better project performance. Managers were included in the internal
stakeholders. Internal stakeholders were directly involved in the PPM success. Some
techniques mentioned for getting the good results of project portfolio management in
organizations. Techniques included learning investment and organizational capabilities.
By implementing these techniques and strategies with the help of the project

16

stakeholders importance of projects can be increased in the project portfolio

management.
Every single project has its own importance in the project portfolio management. They
should specify the resource, time and cost for each single project in PPM for getting the
favorable project portfolio management outcomes. Study mentioned the importance of
each project in a project portfolio management. Study explored that in project portfolio
management, projects were handled as a subject not as an entity (Blichfeldt & Eskerod,
2008). Some important projects got the maximum resources and time, while remaining
small projects always delayed and had to face shortage of resources. These reasons made
project failures in project portfolio management success. Study mentioned that there
should be some separate resources according to the need of each project. So that projects
were handled and preceded in a successful way. Overall success of project portfolio
management was possible due to the successful achievement of single projects which
were monitored separately. Business strategies were also helped to achieve the project
portfolio management success.
Many factors influenced the project portfolio management success in a positive or
negative way. Most of the belongings affected the project portfolio management in a
positive way and enhance the productivity of the projects. While on the other side
weaknesses of the projects reduced the productivity. Business strategies positively
impacted the projects in PPM. The effect of business strategy explained on project
portfolio management and on its success. They introduced the relationship between
strategic orientation, project portfolio management and business success. Strategic
orientation was positively affected the project portfolio management success and then it
enlarged the business success (Meskendahl, 2010). All these things increased the
performance of projects in PPM. Including these factors, some other belongings were
also discussed here which created hurdles in the project portfolio management success.
So lack of managerial important activities created many problems to achieve the
organizations goals.
Previous research mentioned some problems which were building hurdles in internal
development of project portfolio management. Study gave main six problems as a result,
17

which were inadequate project level activities, lacking resources, competencies and
methods, lacking commitment, unclear roles and responsibilities, inadequate portfolio
level activities, inadequate information management and inadequate management of
project-oriented organization. They recommended further research on development of
managerial practices (Elonen & Artto, 2002). They also analyzed that some elements
raised the productivity of the project portfolio management success; on the other hand
some other factors declined the efficiency and productivity of the project portfolio
management success. Balance in all these factors was necessary and involvement of the
internal and external stakeholders was also compulsory who administered the work
according to the need. Some models and matrixes also helped to diminish these errors in
project portfolio management success.
In project portfolio management, strategies were getting much importance because by
implementing these strategies, project success could be achieved, which leads towards
project portfolio management success. By implementing the strategies of business and
adopting different kind of models projects were easier to achieve their goals and clarify
many project requirements. Study of Dickinson et al (2001) explained it cannot be said
that dependency matrix and optimization model condensed all problems and issues of
project portfolio processes. But it provided some additional tools and techniques to
confirm the achievement of PPM success by following these portfolio management
strategies. Three goals of project portfolio management were to maximize the value of
the portfolio, provide balance and the strategy of the business. Dependency matrix and
optimization model provided means to get maximum benefit from multiple projects in
information technology portfolio (Dickinson, Thornton, & Graves, 2001). By adopting
these techniques it was easier to achieve the project portfolio management success.
Further study discussed that project portfolio management was discussed in the IT
projects and previous research also supported that this IT sector was suitable for PPM
related study.
Project portfolio management projects were mostly handled in the IT sector and adoption
of project portfolio management made projects more successful. Study of Reyck et al
(2005) explored that most of the work of project portfolio management had been done in
18

the IT projects. Three stages of classification of the project portfolio management were
defined. There were a correspondence between the project portfolio processes and
improvement of the projects and portfolios. Study found a strong correlation between
increase in the adoption of project portfolio processes and decrease in the project related
problems. There were also a strong relationship between Project portfolio management
adoption and project performance (Reyck, Cockayne, Lockett, Calderini, Moura,
&Sloper, 2005). Their study analyzed that increase in adoption of PPM enhanced the
good performance of the projects. Adoption of PPM gave positive results and increased
the success level of projects. Project portfolio management success linked with many
essential elements which were discussed in the above studies. In PPM projects success
can be improved by involvement of internal and external stakeholders in projects.
Engagement of stakeholders gave positive results in PPM success. Stakeholders critically
linked with the PPM. How stakeholder engagement gave positive results? Which factors
were involved with stakeholders engagement to achieve the PPM success? Selection of
appropriate strategies also increased the accomplishment of projects in PPM. In PPM,
selection and use of strategies according to the project were significant.

2.2.1 Strategies in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

PPM was the extension of project management. Large number of projects monitored
under a single platform. Projects mutual performance was enlarged by good decision
making and negotiation strategies. Bad performance of one project affected the
performance of all the projects in PPM and harmed the complete portfolio. Furthermore,
selection of strategies in PPM should be according to the project needs, which enhanced
the success. PPM was increasing in organizations with positive aspects in two ways;
which were PPM as negotiation and PPM as structure reconfiguration. Study mentioned
the gap of proactive strategies; project portfolios did not follow the PPM negotiation and
reconfiguration strategies for decision making (Martinsuo, 2013; Martinsuo & lehtonen,
2007). PPM used two types of strategies for decision making, which were negotiation and
reconfiguration. These strategies increased the performance of projects in PPM. Further
study also mentioned the importance of the strategies which was essential in project
portfolio management.
19

PPM was aligned with the projects as relating strategies of the organizations with the
projects. PPM improved the success rate of the projects as well as organization. Study
measured the gap of projects progress in different years. Study of Heisting (2012)
mentioned that project portfolio management strategies increased the success level of the
projects and organizations. Project portfolio management strategies were changed after
some time period for improvement in performance (Heiskanen, 2012). Different kinds of
projects needed different types of strategies according to the requirements of the projects.
New strategies used for project success in PPM according to the need.
Project management and project portfolio management both used strategies according to
their requirements. Advancement in Project Portfolio Management was more appropriate
and successful in comparison with Project Management by applying three strategies.
Strategies were used according to their needs and to gain the competitive advantage in
market. The difference in enhancement of project management and project portfolio
management was measured (Killen, Jugdev, Drouin, & Petit, 2012). According to this
literature three strategies were used to improve the project performance. These three roles
or strategies were increased the efficiency of project portfolio management which
enhanced the performance. To made project portfolio management more advanced these
strategies were helpful according to this study. New and advanced strategies, processes or
techniques enhanced the project performance in project portfolio management. Strategies
were directly involved in the project portfolio management. This made projects
successful and lead towards the high level of attainment of project success.
Researchers further referred different sets of strategies and prepositions. This was
depended upon the nature of the projects which were working under the project portfolio
management. Some projects were specifically needed appropriate set of strategies which
were suggested by the previous studies, while some other projects did not think that these
prepositions were suitable for them. This was completely depending upon the nature of
the projects which were handled in the project portfolio management. Project portfolio
structuring and project success were analyzed and outlined by four prepositions. Strategic
orientation, Project Portfolio Management and project success had direct relationship
with the strategies. Study measured the gap between four prepositions to analyze the
20

project success (Meskendahl, 2010). This study was analyzed that four strategies were
introduced for the project success and project portfolio management success. By adding
these strategies in the projects, project structure can be improved and provide better
performance than the previous performance. In project portfolio management success
many other factors were also included rather than strategies like involvement of
stakeholders. Stakeholders were the management resource persons who made these
strategies useful for the project success. For successful project portfolio management
success, there was required direct relationship between the strategies and engagement of
stakeholders with their defined roles.
Strategies were directly linked with the stakeholders of PPM. Stakeholders engagement
directly affected the PPM performance. Strategies were implemented in the projects by
internal stakeholders. Stakeholders engagement in PPM was one reason of the projects
success. How stakeholders can implement better strategies in projects to achieve the PPM
success? Strategies were the segment of framework in PPM. Framework of project was
the guideline at which projects were managed according to planned schedule. Good
strategies and good decision making was very helpful and gave advantage to PPM. By
using appropriate strategies according to project type, it improved project portfolio
management performance and reduced its completion time and resources.

2.2.2 Decision Making in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Mostly decision making was considered important in the project portfolio management.
Decision making was the central part in which all major decisions had been taken to
make the projects successful in the future. In decision making, the project strategies,
procedures, processes, duration, resources, and also human resources were determined.
Complete project depended on the decision making of the project. Especially for the
Project Portfolio Management decision making, only literature support was not enough,
there required some practical approach for good decision making in project portfolio
management (Gutirrez, & Magnusson, 2013). Different projects were demanding
different decision making approaches for the project success and for some innovation.
Decision making approach related with the stakeholders who were directly linked with
the project portfolio management success. Stakeholders engagement made possible
21

project portfolio management success by using different approaches of decision making.

Study of Gutirrez & Magnusson (2013) indicated that some managers used decision
making approaches which were not suitable for the organization. So they had to make the
formal policies for organizing and selection of good decision making approaches.
In the decision making portion all important decisions were taken related to the project
outcomes. After that project managers handled the projects according to their
requirements. Projects success did not depend on the one element. In decision making
planning was also discussed because it was also a process. Stakeholders were always
involved in the decision making and planning processes. How stakeholder involvements
made decision making process more successful and applicable in the project portfolio
management success? Decision making was a process in which involvement of internal
and external stakeholders was essential.

2.2.3Planning in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Project planning was also imperative and critical step in project portfolio management.
Project portfolio management success was also depended on the planning of the projects.
All things which were decided in planning followed by the project stakeholders until
project have been executed. This provided simple calculations based on existing methods
and tools that can provide better foundation for better results to measure the project
planning. He measured the gap of project results by using different methods of planning
(Ross, 2007). He mentioned that to gain good results and success in projects, use different
project planning tools and techniques. Use of best tools and techniques which were
suitable for the project type improved the efficiency of projects in Project Portfolio
Management. This also made it possible to complete within the time limit. Planning had
different aspects like many important factors were discussed in planning process which
were very closely related to the project success. Different belongings of projects in PPM
were related with the planning.
Specific strategies and techniques in project portfolio management should be followed
according to the project needs. This made projects successful. Successful projects needed
important strategies and processes which were also closely related to the project portfolio
22

management success. Possible solutions of the problems in Project Portfolio Management

were better strategic and human resource planning, adequate organizational changes and
efficient risk management. Study measured the gap in strategy implementation in
different projects of Project Portfolio Management. Further research suggested on more
precise and efficient Project Portfolio Management implementations, solutions and
simplifications (Madic, Trujic & Mihajlovic, 2011). Success of one project was related
with many things. Only one measure or one element did not make any project successful
in project portfolio management. Some things were directly related with the projects
while some things related to the persons who were managing these projects. Project
portfolio management sometimes faced many problems which were related to the
different projects.
Project management and project portfolio management were connected with the project
managers and project portfolio managers. Problems and issues were also linked with the
project managers because they had to find the solutions of problems. Furthermore,
research discussed some problems which were faced by the project managers in the
project portfolio management and after that study also described the solutions for these
problems. Study of Cooper et al (2000) mentioned some problems like lack of resources,
go and kill decisions were made in absence of important information and many other
issues which caused failure in projects. Solutions for these problems were described.
Solutions were implemented a proper gating process, build in resource capacity analysis
and last was to develop a product innovation and technology strategy for your business.
By following these solutions, problems can be handled in a good manner and project
portfolio management work more effectively with positive results (Cooper, Edgett,
&Kleinschmidt, 2000). Many issues were discussed by this study and project managers
had to face these issues in the project portfolio management. Stakeholder's engagement
can enhance the PPM success and reduced these issues. Some solutions were provided by
this study as explained above. By implementing these strategies project problems could
be overcome according to this study.
Proper use of project portfolio management practices like planning of resource, schedule,
Human Resource Management, and proper framework increased the success of the
23

projects in project portfolio management. This also solved many problems and issues.
Project portfolio management closely correlated with the stakeholder engagement. Many
problems can be solved by stakeholders engagement. Internal and external both
stakeholders were important in project portfolio management success. How stakeholders
engagement solved problems in the project portfolio management? Selection of projects
was also associated with the stakeholders engagement.

2.2.4 Selection of Projects in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Selection of projects took place according to the current situation and see current
environment was suitable for the applicability of the projects. This also increased the
project performance. Decision making was used in the project selection. Study of
Carlsson et al (2007) mentioned a methodological approach for decision making in
project selection. Methodological techniques were used to increase the good decision
making approach in research and development project selection in portfolio management
(Carlsson, Fuller, Heikkila, &Majlender, 2007). Different approaches were introduced to
enhance the effectiveness of the projects in the project portfolio management. In project
portfolio management selection of projects was very important step. Success and failure
of the projects depended on the selection of projects. This also mentioned that which
approach was suitable for decision making. Different measures related to project
selection were discussed to made projects successful in PPM.
Some things were directly linked with the project portfolio management. These
belongings were mainly selection of projects and maximizing the outcomes. Different
techniques were discussed by the Levine (2006). He also described about practical guide
to selecting projects, managing portfolios and maximizing benefits. In short findings of
the study said that periodically, there was need to review each project to test assumptions,
update givens, monitor progress, and examine alternatives and remodeling the portfolio.
Study measured the gap between projects and operation sides of business (Levine, 2006).
Important factor in project portfolio management was project selection according to
project portfolio management requirement. Project selection and projects decision
making linked with each other. These two important processes need detailed discussions
and proper communication. By following these techniques projects were successful in
24

project portfolio management according to the current situation. Sometimes PPM had to
face risk in decision making related to project selection. Uncertainty level was always
high in tangible projects of project portfolio management.
In project portfolio management selection of projects were related with risk and
uncertainty management. In every phase projects had to face the risk. There was always
uncertainty level high in the projects which were handled in natural environment. So
there was margin of risk in the selection of projects. Both moments and uncertainty were
important in portfolio selection. Results showed that it was important to integrate higher
order moments in portfolio selection. Different methods were used to analyze the level of
uncertainty and errors (Harvey, Liechty, Liechty, & Mller, 2004). They mentioned the
high level projects which were monitored in the project portfolio. They were also trying
to explain that as discussed above in small projects risk and uncertainty level was always
high. In the same way in project portfolios risk level also very high where a large number
of projects were handled at the same time. High level and high budget projects were
included in the project portfolio management. High level models, analysis and techniques
were preferred in the project portfolio management to reduce the risk level. For good
decision making some standards were introduced to follow in project handling. By
following the mentioned techniques project decision making made project portfolio
management more successful.
New and tested approaches for decision making provided a new way towards the
successful PPM. In project portfolio management decision making was the essential
process. Study of Linton et al (2002) mentioned the approach of decision making in
selection of portfolio projects. Decision making approached in two ways accept or reject
the project proposal. Study highlighted a method Value Creation Model (VCM) for
selection of projects in portfolio. Date Envelopment Analysis (DEA) made project
acceptable in portfolio (Linton, Walsh, &Morabito, 2002). They analyzed that approaches
used for good decision making had visible impact on the project portfolio management
success. In project portfolio decision making was a very critical process on which overall
project success depended. This process should be handled very critically specially in case
of project portfolio management success. Decision making in the projects and selection
25

of projects were significant processes of the project portfolio management success.

Stakeholders engagement in decision making was also important. Projects were handled
by internal and external stakeholders in the project portfolio management success. By
involving stakeholders decision making can be improved for selection of projects in the
project portfolio management. Framework of projects was also good factor to improve
the project portfolio management success.

2.2.5 Framework in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Framework in project was the backbone of the project for the success and maturity of
PPM. Framework was the base of the projects which made it successful in the project
portfolio management where more than two projects were monitored at a time. Research
concluded that there should follow the proper framework in companies to gain maturity
and purposeful development in all three project, portfolio and programme management
were important. These three should be adopted by companies in a prosperous way to
attain success. There was a gap in level of maturity of organizations using project and
PPM (Naverauskas & ciutiene, 2011). Framework was not only important for the projects
but also in portfolio and programme management was considered important. To give a
shape to projects for its successful completion was a good sign of achieving the desired
goals. Service portfolio management was also introduced to increase the effectiveness of
the project portfolio management success.
New dimension of the portfolio management was introduced in the framework of project
portfolio management success. This dimension increased the strategy development for the
services in the project portfolio management. Service portfolio management was needed
to integrate the overall framework like service strategy management, service quality
management, etc. Different activities were associated with different tasks so there was no
need to be investigated. Service portfolio management was a tool to increase the
efficiency and reliability of the tasks in PPM (Kohlborn, Fielt, Korthaus, & Rosemann,
2009). Study analyzed that in the project portfolio management projects, service portfolio
management was essential to perform the individual as well as collective tasks perfectly.
By using service strategies, service quality can be enhanced. Tasks in the project portfolio
management were performed with more efficient way by using service strategies.
26

Decision making was also important in the framework of project portfolio management
success.
Selection of framework for specified project was as important as the selection of projects
in PPM. Each project success was depended upon its framework and other essential
factors. Different steps were involved in the selection of the framework. Accurate and
working framework helped to achieve the desired goals in the project portfolio
management. For project portfolio selection framework was suggested as an integrated
decision support system, and need to test it in real decision making situations. Study
measured the gap between different processes of decision making for project portfolio
selection (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999). Selection of projects was also an important
step in project portfolio management as well selection of framework. Proper framework
should follow for projects and decision making in project portfolio management to
improve the PPM success. Further study mentioned the nine knowledge areas which were
key elements of the framework in the IT projects.
Human resource management introduced nine key knowledge areas for IT projects
framework. By using these areas project success can be enhanced. Projects were
successful when follow the 9 key knowledge areas of Human Resource Management
(HRM) properly. These key areas were already mentioned above with extension of 10 th
key area. Study measured the gap of performance between project managers using
limited key knowledge areas and all knowledge areas of Human Resource Management.
Future research recommended finding the other key knowledge areas rather than Human
Resource Management for project management (Naqvi, 2009). One newly introduced
knowledge area which was related to this study is stakeholder management.
Stakeholders engagement was very important in the project portfolio management
success (PMBOK, 2013). Stakeholder management was essential key area of the project
management. Stakeholders engagement made framework stronger towards PPM goals.
According to this literature framework of each project was vital, it made project
dimensions clear towards goal and guide the project managers in a proper way to achieve
desired goals. Improvement in framework increased the project success. Programme
management and stakeholder management were related with each other. Stakeholders
27

were main components of the framework and they influenced the PPM success more
bitterly. Stakeholders participation enhanced the success level of projects in PPM.
Improvement in framework reduced the risk level. Risk management was also effective in
PPM. Risk management in advance was saved projects from big losses.

2.2.6 Risk Management in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Risk management was integrated with the project at each step. At any stage project
managers had to face the project risk related to any part of project in Project portfolio
management. So risk management was also an effective factor in PPM, which can
increase or decrease the level of success. Risk management was essential in the project
portfolio management. Involvement of stakeholders decreased the possibility of risk in
project portfolio management. Study of Mattsson (2010) discussed about the project
managers responsibilities and specially risk management responsibility portfolio. Project
managers engaged with project in direct and indirect way so they had to manage the all
activities related to projects. The risk management responsibility portfolio depended on
the project managers engagement within pre-project and other project phases (Mattsson,
2010). Project managers were directly involved in the project handling. So project
managers also had to face the risk at each phase of the project. Study also analyzed that
project managers skills and qualifications had to face the risk in the project portfolio.
There was integration between risk management and project portfolio management.
Risk management was always present in the project portfolio management. There were
many kinds of risks which created hurdles in the project success in the PPM. Involvement
of managers reduced the effect of risk in a positive way. Study of Sanchez (2008)
concluded about the integration of project portfolio and project risk management that
integration of both was so important to save the projects from environmental risks. Study
found the gap between the project portfolio management and project risk management.
Further research recommended on advantages of project risk management (Sanchez,
Robert & Pellerin, 2008). There was direct relationship between the project risk
management and project portfolio management. Project risk management increased the
effectiveness of projects in the project portfolio management. Risk management was
handled by observing the risks and weaknesses in the previous projects. Experiences of
28

the previous projects helped improving the effectiveness of projects in the project
portfolio management.
There were unlimited ways to handle the risk in the project portfolio management. Some
techniques were standardizes to observe those risks which were normally common in
many projects. Techniques were developed by monitoring the different kinds of errors in
the project portfolio management. To reduce these risks some standards were adopted.
Study explained that portfolio risk managed in two ways. First was that provided some
sources to the single projects to get experiences from the previous projects within the
portfolio. Second was common risks and issues were identified and avoid these risks for
the other projects so that project risks can be managed. By controlling the portfolio risk in
project portfolio management, project portfolio success can be achieved more perfectly
(Olsson, 2006). He focused on two ways by which project risk management can be
overcome. Get experience from the previous mistakes in the projects. Avoid these errors
in the coming projects, projects portfolio success can be enhanced by using these
techniques. Learn something from past mistakes and go for new achievements. Control
over project helped a lot to handle the projects successfully in the project portfolio
management and avoid projects from risks.
Main aspects in project management were controlling and monitoring. Controlling was
the central phase. In this phase most of the errors were automatically reduced by good
monitoring. Stakeholders were directly related with the project management processes.
Internal stakeholders like project managers were the source of risk reduction in the
project portfolio management and also play vital role in controlling and monitoring
processes of project. If Controlling and monitoring were perfectly managed then risk and
uncertainty were automatically decreased. Risk and control of project were improved by
implementing good project management strategies. There was a gap of strategies in
project management. If project processes and strategies were not well defined and not
implemented in a proper way in projects then uncertainty level was always high in PPM
(Atkinson, Crawford, & ward, 2006). They mentioned the strategies which helped to
control the risk and uncertainty in the project portfolio management success.
Stakeholders involvement much helped to reduce the risk in the projects. Involvement of
29

internal stakeholders like project managers enhanced the effectiveness of the project in
the project portfolio management success. If project risk management was properly
managed in project portfolio management (PPM), it increased the efficiency of projects
and also enhanced the performance of projects in PPM. Work was already available in the
literature related to the risk management as explained above. Stakeholder management is
newly introduced area of project management and recent studies were focusing on the
stakeholder management. Stakeholders association in PPM reduced the risk and
increased the performance of projects. Internal stakeholders were involved in the project
practices; they better handle the risk in PPM. How stakeholder engagement reduced the
risk in PPM? Good practices were reduced the risk in PPM. Practices in PPM increased
the accomplishment of the projects. Adoption of good practices was leading PPM toward
achievements and high level of success.

2.2.7 Practices in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Good practices in projects were increased the effectiveness and efficiency of project
portfolio management. Good strategies and processes were implemented in PPM to
attain the best performance of projects. Best practice for PPM according to this study was
managerial excellent practices at each level of project. By following this technique
managers delivered best results to the organization. Study analyzed the gap between
organizational performance differences by following different techniques or procedures
(Hunt & Killen, 2008). According to the literature best techniques were used in PPM, to
get best performance of projects. In project success, practices and techniques played a
vital role. As in project portfolio management high level projects were monitored and a
large number of projects were handled at a time. PPM always needed high level and good
performing strategies. So project portfolio management success also depended on the
good practices which had been used in the projects. These strategies directly linked with
the stakeholders who directly and indirectly linked with the project processes.
Good strategies always follow the standardized patterns which were properly tested
before use. So standardized techniques used in the projects for good results. Furthermore,
internal stakeholders like managers used better practices in PPM according to the need.
Stakeholders commitment in PPM leads the projects toward achievements. How
30

stakeholders made practices more useful for the project portfolio management? Practices
were essential for single projects as well as for multiple projects. Performance of single
project also affected the whole PPM success. Single project was the base of PPM.

2.2.8 Role of Single Project in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Each small project in project portfolio management was as important as other large
projects. Every project was directly involved in the overall success of the project
portfolio management. For success of the large projects it was important to give
importance to the small parts of that project. Similarly for the success of project portfolio
management it was important to give the importance to each small project.
Accomplishment of small or single projects was building the triumph for project portfolio
management. Single project management was associated with portfolio management
efficiency directly in the form of information availability and project management
efficiency, and indirectly in the form of information availability, goal setting and decision
making. Study found the gap of efficiency between single projects and portfolio projects,
and the effect of the single projects on the portfolio projects efficiency and performance
(Martinsuo & lehtonen, 2007). According to the above literature single project was
directly and indirectly related to the project portfolio management success. Single
projects had much contribution in overall project portfolio management success.
Furthermore, project portfolio was successful due to the successful completion of these
single projects. Formalization of project portfolio management also showed positive
results for its goal achievement.
Project portfolio management was vast area in comparison with single projects. But
success of project portfolio was possible with the achievements of single projects
successfully. In project portfolio, complex and easy both types of projects were
monitored. Sometimes this situation became dangerous for the projects to handle. Study
mentioned that in formalization of project portfolio management and single project
management with mediating effect of project portfolio complexity, project portfolio
management gave more positive results as compared to single project management. Study
also analyzed that formalization of project portfolio management showed more positive
results when the projects were more complex. Project portfolio complexity enhanced the
31

effect of project portfolio quality as well as project portfolio success (Teller, Unger,
Kock, & Gemnden, 2012). Literature supported the complex projects. According to the
study more complex projects gave more achievements in the project portfolio
management. Internal and external both stakeholders engagements were significant in
projects. Especially in single projects, engagement of stakeholders made projects easier
to accomplish. Importance of stakeholders engagement was equal in single and PPM
projects. Stakeholders contribution in single and PPM projects was vital for project
achievement. Why stakeholders engagement was important in single and multiple
projects? In PPM project managers also had much contribution in PPM success. Skills of
project managers and project portfolio managers control the most of PPM processes.

2.2.9 Product Innovation in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Product and project innovation always increased the effectiveness of organization. Users
always demand new products for change. So product innovation itself was a source to
increase the effectiveness of the organization or projects in a positive way. Project
innovation included in the project portfolio management, its achievement was
compulsory for each project. Study of Killen (2013) discussed about the relationship
between product innovation, project success and good performance. Project portfolio
management (PPM) associated positively with the product innovation and new product
success. Use of strategic and portfolio mapping methods strongly increased the
performance of PPM. There was a gap between tangible products and service based
organizational performance. Future research recommended on the project portfolio
management services in an emerging area (Killen, Hunt &Kleinschmidst, 2013). Project
innovation increased the project portfolio success, it directly involved in the project
portfolio management progress and success. Some specified techniques which were
followed in a proper way, made project portfolio very successful with product and project
innovation. Some important practices which were essential to follow in each small and
large scale project in the project portfolio management. Time, cost and scope these three
things always important and should specified for each project in the start of the projects.
Above literature described about project portfolio management and new product
development. Results explained that company should put a methodology to choose the
32

right project and allocate both budget and resources for successful completion of the
portfolio projects. There was a gap measured of methods and processes for the project
portfolio completion (Miguel, 2008). For successful project completion allocation of
resources and budget was compulsory for a project. New things could be added in the
projects after implementation of these two important parts. Project innovation and new
product development lead projects towards the project success in PPM. There was
positive relationship between the organizational teamwork and innovation which go
towards goal achievement. Innovation was always related with the inter-organizational
activities. Improvements and new ideas made possible to innovate the projects with new
ideas and techniques. Authors analyzed positive relationship between inter-organizational
collaboration and innovative performance.
As above explained about the innovation, furthermore, the impact of innovative
performance differ depending on the nature of the partners involvement. Researcher
strongly suggested that the relevance of adoption of a portfolio move projects towards the
inter-organizational collaboration within the framework of innovation strategies (Faems,
Looy, & Debackere, 2005). By innovation of the projects, performance of project
portfolio management enhanced. Study of Faems et al (2005) also described the
importance of the stakeholders. By increasing the level of stakeholder engagement,
project innovative performance increased. There were different techniques which were
used for increasing the project performance in the project portfolio management.
Strategies and techniques were always helpful to increase the performance of the project
portfolio management. The product portfolio management focused on all techniques and
processes of PPM for good performance and good quality of work. Study of Cooper et al
(1999) measured the gap between four performance techniques. Further research
recommended towards product innovation (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidst, 1999).
There were different elements which affected the project portfolio performance. Different
techniques used for the performance measurement. Research and development was also
important area to discuss in this context. This also pushed the innovation strategies to be
used and provide best results in a positive way.

33

Research and development was vast area to discuss. In project portfolio management R &
D need special attention for innovation of the projects. Overall performance of the project
portfolio management depended upon these essential and critical phases of the projects.
Portfolio management processes successfully developed to help executives to achieve
their desired objectives by R&D. For better results they had to make balance between
short term pressure and future, long term needs of organization and see R&D direction
was meeting with the objectives. A gap of performance between good performing and
poor performing organizations was measured (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidst, 2001).
Project innovation directly measured the performance gap of project portfolio
management. Good and bad performance depended upon the R&D objectives and
innovation strategies. From this literature, present study analyzed that product innovation
was positively correlated with the progress of the project portfolio management. With the
innovation in products, processes and strategies there will be a positive change in the
projects completion time in PPM. Many other factors also improved the project portfolio
management. Engagement of stakeholders enhanced the effect of innovation in the
Project portfolio management. How stakeholders helped to improve the products and
projects?

Skills of stakeholders were always helpful towards the goals of the

organization.

2.2.10 Skills of Project Managers and Project Portfolio Managers in PPM

Abilities and qualified skills of project managers and project portfolio managers were
helpful for overall PPM success and good performance. Leadership was an important part
of the project handling. Leadership directly linked with that person who was managing
the project activities. Study of Ahmed et al (2013) explored the importance of project
leadership in handling the projects in diverse and demanding environment. Study
mentioned that there was a limited research on this topic while recommendations were
given many time. The roles and functions of project leadership had been highlighted and
it became important to understand the difference between leadership and management. As
discussion found difference between project leadership and project management to
determine the results on success and failure of projects. Future research recommended on
valuable project leadership (Ahmed, Azmi, Masood, Tahir, & Ahmad, 2013). Leadership
34

performed skillfully made projects outcome possible to achieve. Further some leadership
styles were discussed which were adopted according to the project requirements.
Leadership controlled by project and project portfolio managers who were very close to
the project and had direct involvement. Leadership always worked at upper level.
Decision making occurred at the top management while other managers had to follow the
instructions. Study of Kissi et al (2013) mentioned that the project managers leadership
effect on the project success and performance. Transformational leadership of portfolio
managers increased the project performance at corporate level. Study analyzed the gap of
project performance due to transformational portfolio managers at corporate and middle
level managers (Kissi, Dainty &Tuuli, 2013). Study analyzed the gap in the performance
at two levels. Leadership work perfectly at top level, but study analyzed the leadership at
middle and top level. Top and middle managers engagement with each other improved
the project performance in PPM.
There were many leadership styles which were used according to the requirement.
Leadership worked on that place more perfectly where it was really needed. Study
mentioned that strong relationship of project managers with his/her team lead towards the
project success. Project managers leadership style would be according to the project
type. Project managers needed to used his skills according to the project requirements and
increased the project performance. By increasing the communication within the team, it
provided positive results towards the project success (Yang, Huang, & Wu, 2011).
According to this literature leadership style associated with the project requirements.
Strong relationship within the team members was also affecting the project results
positively. Study of Yang et al (2011) mentioned that project managers engagement with
other stakeholders gave desired outcomes.
Leadership styles of project portfolio managers affected the performance of PPM. For
successful project completion, project leaders had to change their behavior with their
team. Personnel working style should match at each stage of the project with the project
activities. Skills of project managers and project portfolio managers were considered as
internal stakeholders abilities in PPM. Stakeholders abilities directly affected the PPM
performance. How stakeholders skills effect the PPM success? In successful project
35

completion, involvement of stakeholders was also imperative. This increased the

competence of the projects and also enlarged the likelihood of success. Internal and
external both stakeholders engagements were essential in PPM success.

2.2.11 Role of Project managers, Stakeholders and Customers in PPM

Role of different stakeholders was important to describe and performed in a creative way.
Different instruments have been developed to measure the performance of stakeholders in
terms of their roles and responsibilities. Multi-criteria decision aiding methodology
constructivist MCDA-C instrument was used in this research to evaluate the performance
of the project portfolio. This was a good instrument and used in project portfolios in
decision making. Gap of performance measurement was measured in this study (Lacerda,
Ensslin & Ensslin, 2011). A tool was used to measure the performance of the project
portfolio management due to the stakeholders roles. Major responsibilities mentioned for
further studies were related to the project managers. Portfolio managers were directly
influence the project portfolio management success.
Stakeholders engagement had influence on the project portfolio management success. In
this context both internal and external stakeholders were important. Internal stakeholders
had direct impact on the project portfolio management success. Portfolio manager was
responsible to deliver project or end product with complete perfection and good quality
by using transaction cost economies (TCE). A gap was measured between different work
qualities of managers. Further research recommended on combination of qualitative and
quantitative portfolio management (Koh, 2011). Study mentioned that portfolio managers
who were include in the internal stakeholders had direct impact on the project portfolio
management success. Involvement of internal managers affected the most project
portfolio management success, because they had direct relationship with the project
activities.
Different management levels involved in the project portfolio activities. Involvement of
top management always present in the decision making and other important activities.
Roles and responsibilities defined in the project portfolio management. This provided
better results to the project portfolio. Top management team and middle managers
36

interface enhanced the work quality and also gave better results for project success. Study
suggested that top management team and middle managers should be aware of their role
with good understanding because their understanding enhanced the interface process. Top
management team more perfectly performed their duties and made good interface
processes (Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, & Roe, 2011).They mentioned that involvement of
both top management and middle management were essential. In comparison with middle
management, top management involvement provided better results in PPM. Most
important factor which made successful of any project was project managers skills,
abilities, experience, leadership and decision making skills. Involvement of stakeholder
and customers were also helpful for the projects in PPM. How stakeholder engagement
enhanced the effect of role of internal stakeholders? Engagement of stakeholders directly
involved in the project portfolio management success.

2.3 Engagement of Stakeholders

Sometimes business requirements were changed for the stakeholders. In some
organizations only one person was the owner of the whole organization. In some cases
more than one person were counted as owners. Sometimes company sale shares too many
persons or parties. Study of Parise and Casher (2003) presented a portfolio approach in
which business partner relationship was focused for managing, analyzing and designing
the project within the organization. By mutual understanding of the partners alliance
network and benefits of the organization enhanced and decrease the errors. Relationship
value of the partners improved the effectiveness of the organization (Parise& Casher,
2003). Good relationship value of business partners enhanced the accomplishments of the
organization. Good communication between internal stakeholders effected positively.
Many issues occurred due to the misunderstanding of the internal stakeholders and due to
this cause, aim of the organization ignored.
Some important factors which were follow properly without any ignorance in the project
portfolio management. Stakeholder engagement directed with the business activities
especially internal

stakeholders

was

useful

for

these

activities.

Stakeholder

communication was one of the important determinants of project success. Significance of

stakeholder communication was a primary determinant which defined scope, time, cost
37

and quality standards for its projects (Naqvi, Aziz, & Rehman, 2011). Stakeholder
communication resolved primary level problems in the project portfolio management
success. Primary determinants time, scope and cost were controlled in its best way by
stakeholder communication. Further study was recommended that integration between
stakeholders had positive impact on the project portfolio performance.
Engagement of internal and external stakeholders was essential for the project portfolio
management goal achievement. Relationship with all type of stakeholders enhanced work
activity in a positive manner. Involvement of managers at different designation also
benefitted the projects. Integration between different stakeholders group was very
important for project success and good performance. Good communication and
continuity between mentioned groups like senior management, project core team and
project recipients stakeholders groups made projects successful. The agreement for
perception of project success between these three groups was managed to gain the best
project performance (Davis, 2014). The engagement of internal and external stakeholders
made projects more successful. Good communication and continuous relationship
between all stakeholders made project achievements easier to achieve in project portfolio
management.

2.3.1 Engagement of Internal Stakeholders in Project Portfolio Management

(PPM)
Internal stakeholders involvement in projects increased the performance and chances of
success in project portfolio management. Human resource was directly involved in the
project processes and introduced strategies to attain the projects desired goals.
Involvement of internal stakeholders like top and line managers was very important in
project portfolio management success. Empowerment of top management, interventions
by top and line management, encouragement by top management were the three main
aspects by which project portfolio management success can be enhanced. Line and top
management involvement also increased the performance of project portfolio
management success (Jonas, 2010). The roles of the different internal stakeholders should
be according to their designations. Empowerment and encouragement performed at the
top level and it was also beneficial for the project portfolio management success. Other
38

studies also supported the senior management involvement and their effective
communication in project portfolio management.
Further study focused on the relationship of the senior management. Skills of senior
managers enhanced the project activities in effective manner. Study of Unger et al (2012)
promoted senior management involvement to perform as strategic managers by adopting
an effective project portfolio culture in which termination of projects gave positive results
in a successful way. Managers focused on effective communication, so that other
stakeholders of project portfolio also influenced positively on project portfolio
management success. Future research recommended to investigate the different types of
involvement differently and its impact on the project termination quality and project
portfolio management success (Unger, Kock, Gemnden, & Jonas 2012). Researchers
mentioned the relationship between stakeholders by good communications. This
enhanced the project portfolio management performance. Internal stakeholders had direct
impact on the project portfolio management success.
Following hypotheses were developed to test the relationship of the internal stakeholders
engagement with the PPM:
H1: The greater the Internal Stakeholders Engagement in PPM, the better
prospects for success of PPM.
Internal stakeholders directly affected the project portfolio management success. Internal
stakeholders included different kind of managers. Study researched about the internal
stakeholders and their impact on the project portfolio success. Study described that
Project managers, project portfolio managers, senior managers and line managers had
positive or significant effect on the portfolio project success. Study analyzed the gap of
the significance level of different internal stakeholders on the project success. Further
research recommended on external key stakeholders who directly involved in the project
portfolio management success (Beringer, Jonas & Kock, 2013). Study mentioned the
different managers who had direct impact on the project portfolio management success.
Some internal stakeholders had significant impact on the project portfolio management
success. Beringer et al (2013) used role clarity as a moderator for their study and role
clarity moderated the relationship some of the managers on PPM success. How internal
39

stakeholders engagement had positive impact on the project portfolio management

success? Engagement of external stakeholders also had significant effect on the project
portfolio success.

2.3.2 Engagement of External Stakeholders in Project Portfolio Management

Normally engagement of external stakeholders was not considered important in the
project portfolio management success. In external stakeholders customers, suppliers,
vendors, donors and many other stakeholders were included. Study of Rosell (2013)
explained that buyer supplier collaboration in new product development had positive
impact on the project innovation. From knowledge perspective it was observed that
supplier knowledge was combined or related with the buyer knowledge. Different
suppliers knowledge added different contributions in the new product development in
the form of new practices, new ideas and new ways of competition (Rosell, 2013). He
mentioned only two stakeholders which were suppliers and customers. He mentioned that
supplier and customer integration effected positively and enhanced the innovation.
Engagement of customers independently had much influence on the project portfolio
management success.

2.3.2.1 Engagement of Customers

In project portfolio management involvement of external stakeholders was as important
as internal stakeholders. Hence, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders also sway the
project portfolio management success. Customers was always first preference of any
project or product development. Study of Menon et al (2005) and Voss and Kock (2013)
discussed about the moderating variables and their impact on the project portfolio
management success. Results described that relationship value of customers in portfolio
projects had a positive effect on the project success. Customer relationship value
increased the significance of the projects. There was a gap of project success by
involvement of moderating variables (Voss & Kock, 2013). Hypothesis for customers
engagement had been described to empirically test the relationship.
H2: The greater the customers engagement in PPM, the better prospects for
success of PPM.

40

Engagement of customer had significant effect on the project portfolio management

success. Study explained that customers relationship value in the project portfolio
management success increased the performance of the overall project portfolio
management. Customers were beneficial stakeholders in project portfolio management.
Projects can be achieved according to the requirements of the customers. So involvement
of the customers was very important and it made the project achievements easier.
Engagement of suppliers also enhanced the project portfolio management success. Both
customers and suppliers had significantly impact on the project portfolio management
success.

2.3.2.2 Engagement of Suppliers

Suppliers were the important stakeholders especially for project portfolio management.
Suppliers play vital role in the achievement of goals in the project portfolio. Suppliers
involvement mostly preferred in the project portfolio. Study analyzed that suppliers
involvement has become popular in portfolio projects to increase the effectiveness of the
projects. Study developed a hypothesis for suppliers engagement as:
H3: The more effectively supplier engagement during PPM, the better prospects
for success of PPM.
Supplier engagement enhanced the effectiveness of the project portfolio management
success. Study explored the main issue was that manufacturers were not sure about
involvement with suppliers, which type of engagement they should contain with the
suppliers. In this study four types of supplier involvement introduced for development of
projects in supplier involvement portfolio. Four types of supplier involvements were
explained as direction of information flow, the communication media used, amount of
communication and the topics discussed and functions involved in portfolio projects
(Wynstra, & Pierick, 2000).They introduced the supplier engagement in the project
portfolio and mentioned that supplier engagement preferred in the project portfolio
management. Four types of suppliers discussed in the study. Each kind of supplier
affected the portfolio success in its own way. Strategies of the project portfolio
management also related with the supplier engagement.

41

Framework was the development of the project planning in which strategies, processes
and other techniques were defined which were used for the project successful completion.
Suppliers were also the part of that framework in which strategies selected for projects.
Study analyzed the framework that identified the short and long term strategic processes
related to supplier involvement (Echtelt, Wynstra, Weele, & Duysters, 2004).They
mentioned that by planning and execution of strategic processes and techniques can be
used to achieve the short term objectives and long term objectives can also be gained by
adding the supplier involvement. Authors further analyze that how companies achieve
desired goals by adding the supplier involvement? Supplier engagement showed results
in a positive way for project success.
Study mentioned that supplier involvement was beneficial for the project goal
achievement. Study of Echtelt et al (2006) analyzed that strategies used to achieve the
short and long term objectives by adding processes and involvement of the suppliers. By
adding the supplier involvement these things work with more perfection. Above studies
mentioned that now supplier engagement added in projects by decision making
approaches. New product development was a process in which companies go forward for
competition in the market. Suppliers played an important role in this era. For new product
development engagement of external stakeholders enhanced the compatibility of the
product. Companies need to set a decision making strategic processes to create a good
supplier involvement. Supplier engagement was essential for short term as well as long
term policies for new project development. There was a need to identify right partners
and perfect supplier involvement from suppliers. Companies also need to get guidelines
and directions from decision making processes for supplier engagement in projects
(Echtelt, Wynstra, Weele, &Duysters, 2006). Researchers mentioned that decision making
strategies were developed to enhance the supplier engagement in the projects. Echtelt et
al (2006) also mentioned there was need of right decision making and new strategies for
the supplier engagement. Supplier engagement improved the new product development
strategies.
Many things were related with the suppliers. Some errors made it favorable for the
projects and on the other hand some factors made it unfavorable for the projects. Previous
42

study analyzed the supplier involvement benefitted the project portfolio success in a
positive way. The possible negative and positive effects of supplier engagement on the
new product development in an organization were focused. Negative effects of supplier
engagement in new product development were communication barriers, skills and
knowledge barriers and commitment barriers. Positive effects of supplier involvement
were effectiveness and efficiency of short term product increased when suppliers were
involved. Supplier involvement also increased the product value and quality (Witlox,
2010). He mentioned some positive and negative sides of the supplier involvement.
Supplier engagement provided a lot of signs of achievements in positive direction.
External stakeholders engagement made goals clear and enhanced the project portfolio
management achievements. How external stakeholders had positive impact with
moderating effect of role clarity on the project portfolio management success? There was
a need to identify the involvement of internal stakeholders as well as external
stakeholders both had significant effect on project portfolio management success. Internal
stakeholders and external stakeholders helped to improve project outcomes and success.
In project portfolio management stakeholders had much influence on the projects in a
positive way to achieve projects desired goal. Both internal and external stakeholders
were significant to achieve the overall project accomplishment in project portfolio
management. Role clarity was affecting the variables as a moderator; it increased the
efficiency of the internal and external stakeholders and had encouraging impact on the
project portfolio management success. How internal and external stakeholders had
positive impact on the project portfolio management with moderating effect of role
clarity?

2.4 Moderating Effect of Role Clarity

Study had different findings about the role clarity. Studies which have used role clarity as
a moderator mentioned here. Role clarity moderated the relationship between role
ambiguity and athlete satisfaction (Bray, Beauchamp, Eys & Carron, 2005). Bliese &
Castro (2000) also used role clarity as moderator for their study. Another study said that
need for role clarity did not moderate the relationship between the degree of role clarity
and job satisfaction (Miles & Petty, 1975). Role clarity used as moderator in both studies
but in one it was working as moderator and in another study it was not working as
43

moderator. So, role clarity moderated the independent variables depend upon the nature
of variables. Following hypotheses were developed to test the effect of role clarity as a
moderator:
H4: Role clarity moderates the relationship between internal stakeholders
engagement and project portfolio management success.
H5: Role clarity moderates the relationship between customer's engagement and
project portfolio management success.
H6: Role clarity moderates the relationship between supplier's engagement and
project portfolio management success.
Internal stakeholders like top managers, and project managers had significant effect on
the project portfolio management success with moderation effect of role clarity. External
stakeholders like customers and suppliers engagement also show significant effect on the
project portfolio management success with moderation effect of role clarity. Beringer et
al (2013) described that role clarity had moderating effect on the project portfolio
management success. Role clarity enhanced the significance level of some internal
stakeholders and increased the success of PPM. Some internal stakeholders engagement
had direct relationship with the role clarity. It made clear to the managers to perform their
role in PPM. Role clarity also made clear directions to external stakeholders for their role
in PPM. It increased the impact of external stakeholders on PPM. How role clarity made
directions clear to internal and external stakeholders?
Above literature explained about different factors which directly or indirectly affected the
performance of the PPM. Factors which had positive effect on the PPM performance and
success were involvement of internal stakeholder and managers. In this literature
involvement of external stakeholders was not yet explored, and also effect of both
internal and external stakeholders on the PPM performance accomplishment was not yet
studied. This study intends to find the impact of internal and external stakeholders on the
Project Portfolio Management success.

44

2.5 Hypothesized Model

Figure: 2.0

Independent Variables

Moderator

Dependent Variable

Kissi et al (2013), Voss & Kock (2013) and Beringer et al (2013) focused on the impact
of the internal stakeholders on project portfolio success and Voss and Kock (2013)
explored that relationship value of external stakeholders e.g. customers with moderating
effect of portfolio characteristics and external turbulence increased the performance in
PPM. The current study determined the impact of both internal and external stakeholders
on PPM success.
Beringer et al 2013 related this research with the stakeholder theory in project portfolio
management perspective. Freeman (1984) defined a stakeholder as any group or
individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's
objectives. Based on this definition Beringer et al 2013 defined project portfolio
stakeholders as any group or individual in an association with a project portfolio, such
that the cluster or individual can affect or is affected by the attainment of the portfolio's
objectives with moderating role of role clarity. So this theory also supported the present
study because study perceived that stakeholders engagement have significant effect on
the project portfolio management success with moderating effect of role clarity.
45

The present study understand from the literature that involvement of internal stakeholders
had positive effect on the PPM success but involvement of external stakeholders in PPM
was not yet explored. So this intends to find the impact of internal as well as external
stakeholders on the project portfolio management success. Above literature was the
source to identify the variables used in this study. Figure 2.1 depict intensity of senior
managers engagement, intensity of line managers engagement, intensity of project
portfolio managers engagement and intensity of project managers engagement as
independent variables of internal stakeholders, while intensity of customers engagement
and intensity of suppliers engagement are also independent variables but part of external
stakeholders. Project portfolio management success is a dependent variable. Present study
measured the project portfolio management success by strategic fit and average project
success. Role clarity is the moderating variable. The demographic variables to be used in
the current research are Software House Title, Total Work Experience , Total work
Experience of managing portfolios , Team Strength , Annual Revenue , Duration of
Existence of Software House , Specialty of Software House , Span of Software
house , CMMI Ranking , Software House Certifications , Software House Clients ,
Number of Portfolios , Number of Projects in one Portfolio , Number of Projects Lead
Successfully , Number of Project Portfolio Managers , Number of Project Managers ,
Project Worth , Information is Given About and Designation of the Respondents.

46

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

47

This chapter covered the research design and methodology used in identifying and
evaluating the relationship among independent and dependent variables under this study.
Independent, dependent and moderating variables were mentioned in the model (Figure
2.1). The history of constructs had been explained in the model and further quantitative
analysis had been used to identify the outcome. It was aimed to identify the impact of
stakeholders engagement on project portfolio management success, in IT sector Lahore,
Pakistan.

3.1 Elements of Research Design

The research examined the relationship of internal and external stakeholders by
moderating effect of the role clarity on project portfolio management success. Internal
stakeholders engagement had four dimensions same used by the Beringer et al (2013)
and external stakeholders engagement had two further dimensions. PPM had measured
by the Average Project Success (APS) and Strategic Fit (SF) already incorporated by
Beringer et al (2013) in the same context. The elements of research design with complete
details were listed below:

3.1.1 Type of study

For the purpose of this study, Correlational design had been used (Non- Contrived), that
already has been validated by the Beringer et al (2013) in the same context. It has
targeted to study the relationship between stakeholders engagement and PPM success
with moderating effect of role clarity. Software houses had been selected from the city of
Lahore, Pakistan.

3.1.2 Extent of researcher interference

As it is non contrived study researchers interference remained minimum to get balanced
and consistent data. However, during data collection for mitigating the probability of
poor data, researchers interference remained compulsory in following cases:

1. To fill the questionnaire (provided under Appendix: III) used for this study with
titles Software House Title, Total Work Experience , Total work Experience
of managing portfolios , Team Strength , Annual Revenue , Duration of
48

Existence of Software House , Specialty of Software House , Span of Software

house , CMMI Ranking , Software House Certifications , Software House
Clients , Number of Portfolios , Number of Projects in one Portfolio ,
Number of Projects Lead Successfully , Number of Project Portfolio Managers
, Number of Project Managers , Project Worth , Information is Given About
and Designation of the Respondents who has filled the questionnaire about given
dependent and independent and moderating variables. This was significant, as IT
professionals in the highlighted IT industry remained hasty in filling the fields of
the questionnaire during the preliminary survey. For this reason researcher had to
request the concerned IT experts of the software house to provide the data about
the above mentioned fields for each and every selected IT project portfolio. For
getting the desired sample of respondents set of questionnaire hand over to the
panel of members of that IT project portfolio.
2. For getting the questionnaire refilled by the team members who filled
questionnaire either inaccurately or made mistakes, like who filled the items two
times or not filled the items at all in the questionnaire.

3.1.3 Study Setting

This is a Correlational study conducted in the field. It targeted studying the impact of
stakeholders engagement on project portfolio management success by measuring the
level of engagement of project managers and CEOs in IT project portfolios from
selected software houses which were registered in P@SHA list is given in (Table 1,
Appendix I) managing different kind of IT project portfolios within the city of Lahore
Pakistan, from September 2012 to June 2014.

3.1.4 Time schedule

The time awarded for this study was from September 2012 to June 2014, the researcher
had started visiting the software houses since November 2013. The researcher collected
the facts and figures as external member of the IT industry until March 2014. Data had
been collected from the IT industry during this time period. Data collection had been
completed till March 2014. It was conducted as a cross-sectional study (Sekaran &
49

Bougie, 2013). Since March 2014 onward the researcher concentrated on compiling the
thesis.

3.1.5 Population
The study set its population to be the groups who were managing projects in portfolios,
undertaking considerable IT projects of different types and scopes within the selected
software houses within the city of Lahore, Pakistan. The study identified and selected its
population based on some important factors described next. As the data was collected in
between November 2013 to March 2014, the study selected the software houses who are
managing their projects in a portfolio. Information was gathered about those software
houses that were managing project in portfolios, during the June 2013 to March 2014, the
recent project portfolios can be identified in selected software houses. This was done to
make sure that the data is valid and reliable about IT project portfolios. It was necessary
to find the accurate and realistic data about the project portfolios which is being handled
in the present time. IT professionals remembered their recent project portfolios so that
they can provide us better information related to recent work rather than past project
portfolios.
Focal persons identified were CEOs of software houses and project managers and other
managers who are involved in project management. We had taken the population
primarily from Arfa Kareem Software Technology Park (STP) and then other large
software houses in Lahore by following the pasha list. Primarily in pilot survey about 30
software houses were identified and number of software houses where projects in
portfolios are managed, in Arfa Kareem Software Technology Park are 28, list is given in
table 3 in Appendix 1. According to pilot survey number of C.E.Os, project managers
and other managers in Arfa Kareem 30 software houses is approximately 90.
Respondents will be C.E.Os and their nominated project managers and other managers
who are managing projects in portfolio in software houses. List of respondents is given in
table 3 in Appendix 1. In complete research survey 87 software houses according to
Pasha registered list were identified and about 65 software houses were managing their
projects in portfolio. Their details are provided in the Appendix 1. Lists of the respondent
detail in table 3, pasha registered software houses list in table 1 and Arfa Kareem
50

software houses detail is given in the table 2 in Appendix 1. Respondents identified on

the following conditions:
1. Software houses were selected where IT projects were managed in project
portfolio management.
2. Prefer those software houses where project managers were involved in the
portfolio management.
3. Organizations / software houses who were willing to provide the information
about IT project managers, portfolio managers, and projects in portfolio and about
software houses.
4. Software houses who were managing the high budget and high level IT projects in
portfolio.

3.1.6 Unit of Analysis

Respondents were C.E.Os of software houses and their project and portfolio managers
who were managing IT projects in portfolio same has been reinforced by the Beringer et
al(2013) and Frey et al (2011) in the same context. Study tried to analyze the
involvement or level of engagement of the project managers and portfolio managers in
the project portfolio management as Beringer et al (2013) has been used for their study.

3.1.7 Sampling Design

The study adopted the Multi Stage Sampling as explained by Sekaran & Bougie (2013).
1st Stage: Selection of city, 2nd Stage: Selection of software houses, 3 rd Stage: selection of
CEOs and all type of managers who are dealing projects in portfolios (Beringer et al,
2013). From 87 software houses 65 software houses were managing their projects in
portfolio. For this study size of the identified and selected population was 195, for
achieving the 99% confidence with minimum error in results, a sample of 160
respondents was selected by ensuring that all respondents will be from those software
houses that were managing projects in portfolio confirmed by Sekaran & Bougie (2013).
Questionnaires were adopted from different studies. Survey technique was used during
data collection. 160 questionnaires were distributed out of which 100 questionnaires were
returned, yielding a response rate of 62.5%.The questionnaires were circulated to the
51

C.E.Os and project managers of the software houses in IT industry Lahore Pakistan
already has been validated by the Beringer et al (2013) in the Germany.

3.1.8 Data Measuring Instruments

The study adopted valid scales from the previous studies, where reliability of the
instrument was available. The instrument consisted of 60 items and collected responses
on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
1. The first section of the questionnaire covered demographic details of each
respondent and software house including Software House Title, Total Work
Experience , Total work Experience of managing portfolios , Team Strength ,
Annual Revenue , Duration of Existence of Software House , Specialty of
Software House , Span of Software house , CMMI Ranking , Software House
Certifications , Software House Clients , Number of Portfolios , Number of
Projects in one Portfolio , Number of Projects Lead Successfully , Number of
Project Portfolio Managers , Number of Project Managers , Project Worth ,
Information is Given About and Designation of the Respondent.
2. Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to the Role Clarity
Moderating Variable RC, Dependent variables like Strategic Fit and Average
Project Success. This instrument was adopted from the study of the Beringer et al
(2013). The instrument originally (Beringer et al., 2013) had 10 items. Validity of
this construct has been assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and significance
of variables was between 0.7 and 0.83. Reliability assessed by Cronbachs alphas,
Cronbachs coefficients was between 0.7 and 0.8.The five point scale ranging
from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree) had been used.
3. Section 3 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to the Independent
Variables for External Stakeholders; Relationship value of customers contains two
further dimensions like relationship value for customers and relationship value
from customers. This instrument adopted from the study of Voss &Kock, (2013).
The instrument contained 10 items originally. This instrument was customized
according to the need of study and also used the same scale for the relationship
value of suppliers. So 21 items added to this section. Reliability was assessed by
Cronbachs alphas; coefficients for these items for relationship value for the
52

customers and from the customers were accordingly 0.85 and 0.74. Validity was
assessed by test retest. The five point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to
5(strongly agree) had been used.
4. Section 4 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to the Independent
Variables for Internal Stakeholders; About Managers and Senior Management
Involvement two variables was added in this section from different studies. First
variable which was about managers adopted from the study of (Kissi et al., 2013).
This instrument contained 22 items and as it was used this instrument in this
study. Second variable was senior management involvement (SMI). This
instrument adopted from the study of Unger et al (2012). This instrument
contained 7 items and all these items had been used in this study. Validity of this
scale has assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and significance of variables
was 0.96. Reliability assessed by Cronbachs alphas, Cronbachs coefficients was
between 0.89.The five point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly
agree) had been used.
5. Formal Permission on email has been obtained on each variable by respective
Researchers.

1.1.9 Data Analysis

1. The statistical analysis had been carried out with the help of the SPSS 20.
2. Demographic analysis had been analyzed with the help of frequency tables
and pie charts.
3. Reliability Analysis had been employed by using Cronbachs Alpha.
Reliability analysis had been performed to find out the consistency among
the items.
4. For analysis of the sample characteristics, Descriptive statistics of means,
frequencies, standard deviations, variance, maximum, minimum and
percentages was running.
5. Pearsons Correlation had been used where applicable to determine the
relationship between Independent and Dependent variables.
6. Pair wise Hierarchical Regression had been employed to find the
relationship of variables.
7. Pair wise Hierarchal Regression Analysis had been used for Hypothesis
testing.
53

8. To examine the moderating effect of Role Clarity, Pair wise Hierarchical

Regression had been used.
The details and results of these tests were provided under chapter: 4.

3.1.10 Coding of Data

The variables under study were selected scores on a 5 point interval Scale. Table 3.1
showed the coding of data used for analysis and explanation.
Table: 3.1 Coding of Data

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

54

1
2
3
4
5

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter discussed the descriptive and inferential statistics drawn from the
relationship of the independent, dependent and moderating variables under study. The
descriptive portion of statistics roofed the characteristics of the variables, whereas the
inferential statistics helped to generate the results by analyzing the relationship among
variables under this study.
55

4.1 Introducing Variables in Research

Demographic analysis was reported to give an overview about the characteristics and
experiences of the project managers in Software Houses. The Reliability analyses were
used to test the reliability of the constructs, correlation and regression to test the
relationship between the variables and step wise hierarchal regression analyses was used
to check the effect of moderation on dependent variable. Frequency distributions
calculated for all Demographic Variables with the help of SPSS version 20. Sample data
of 100 was collected from the Software Houses in IT industry.
ISE Represents independent variable Internal Stakeholders Engagement
RVC Represents independent variable Relationship Value of Customers
RVS Represents independent variable Relationship Value of Suppliers
RC - Represents moderating variable Role Clarity
PPS Represents dependent variable Project Portfolio Management Success
Table: 4.1- Research Variables

ISE

RVC

RVS

RC

PPS

Valid

100

100

100

100

100

Missing

4.2 Demographic Analysis

A total of 160 questionnaires were distributed to achieve the sample size of 100 for data
analysis. Demographic characteristics are explained below:
4.2.1 Designation of the Respondent
The designations of the respondents were divided into four main brackets like
C.E.O/Director, Project Manager, IT Manager and others. The Table 4.2 and figure 4.1
56

showed that out of 100 respondents 25(25%) were C.E.Os, 51(51%) were project
managers, 8(8%) were IT managers and 16(16%) were other managers who filled the
questionnaire. This implies that most of the respondents are project managers in the
software houses.
Table 4.2 Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Designation of Respondent
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

C.E.O/ Director

25

25.0

25.0

25.0

Project Manager

51

51.0

51.0

76.0

IT Manager

8.0

8.0

84.0

Others

16

16.0

16.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Designation - Frequency
ceo

it manager

others

project manager

25%
51%

8%
16%

Figure 4.1 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Designation of Respondent

4.2.2 Gender
Nominal scale was used to collect the responses about gender of the respondents. The
Table 4.3 and figure 4.2 showed that out of 100 respondents 92(92%) were Males and
8(8%) females. This implies that most of the employees in the software houses are males.

Table 4.3 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Gender

57

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

male

92

92.0

92.0

92.0

female

8.0

8.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Gender -Frequency
female

male

8%

92%

Figure 4.2 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Gender

4.2.3 Experience of Respondent

The experience of the respondents of managing projects in the software houses was
divided into four main categories like up to 2 years, 2 to 6 years, 6 to 10 years and above
10 years. The Table 4.4 and figure 4.3 showed that out of 100 respondents 9(9%) had
experience of up to 2 years, 24(24%) had experience of 2 to 6 years, 20(20%) had
experience of 6 to 10 years and 47(47%) had experience of above 10 years. This showed
58

that most of the respondents have experience of above 10 years of managing the projects.
Since most of the respondents were experienced therefore the study perceived that the
data was credible.
Table 4.4 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Experience of Respondent

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Up to 2

9.0

9.0

9.0

2-6

24

24.0

24.0

33.0

6 - 10

20

20.0

20.0

53.0

Above 10

47

47.0

47.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Experience - Frequesncy
2 TO 6

6 TO 10

ABOVE 10

9%

UP TO 2

24%

46%

20%

Figure 4.3 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Experience of Respondent

4.2.4Experience of Project Portfolio Management

The experience of respondents of managing projects in portfolio in the software houses
was divided into four main groups like up to 2 years, 2 to 6 years, 6 to 10 years and above
10 years. The Table 4.5 and figure 4.4 showed that out of 100 respondents 34(34%) had
experience of up to 2 years, 22(22%) had experience of 2 to 6 years, 16(16%) had
experience of 6 to 10 years and 28(28%) had experience of above 10 years. These
59

percentages mention that most of the respondents have experience up to 2 years of

managing the projects in portfolios. Most of the managers have recently initiated to
manage the projects in the portfolio.
Table 4.5 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Experience of PPM

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Up to 2

34

34.0

34.0

34.0

2-6

22

22.0

22.0

56.0

6 - 10

16

16.0

16.0

72.0

Above 10

28

28.0

28.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Experience of PPM - Frequency

2 TO 6

6 TO 10

ABOVE 10

UP TO 2

22%

33%

16%
28%

Figure 4.4 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Experience of PPM

4.2.5 Number of Employees

The number of employees of the software houses was divided into four main categories
like less than 50, 50 to 100,100 to 200 and above 200. The Table 4.6 and figure 4.5 show
that 69(69%) respondents were from those software houses who had less than 50
employees, 19(19%) respondents were from those software houses who had 50 to 100
60

employees, 3(3%) respondents were from those software houses who had 100 to 200
employees and 9(9%) respondents were from those software houses who had above 200
employees. This study implies that most of the software houses have employees less than
50.
Table 4.6 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Employees

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 50

69

69.0

69.0

69.0

50 - 100

19

19.0

19.0

88.0

100 - 200

3.0

3.0

91.0

Above 200

9.0

9.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Employees - Frequency
100 to 200

50 to 100

ABOVE 200

less than 50

3%
19%
9%
69%

Figure 4.5 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Employees

4.2.6Annual Revenue of Software House

The annual revenue of the software houses was divided into three main brackets like up
to 1$ million, between1 to 2$ million and above 2$ million. The Table 4.7 and Figure 4.6
showed that 63(63%) respondents were from those software houses who earn up to 1$
61

million revenue annually, 11(11%) respondents were from those software houses who
earn up to 1-2$ million revenue annually and 26(26%) %) respondents were from those
software houses who earn up to above 2$ million revenue annually. This study showed
that most of the software houses were highly budgeted and reputed.
Table 4.7 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Revenue

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Up to 1$ million

63

63.0

63.0

63.0

Between 1 - 2$ million

11

11.0

11.0

74.0

Above 2$ million

26

26.0

26.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Revenue - Frequency
Above 2$ million

between 1 to 2$ million

up to 1$ million

26%
63%

11%

Figure 4.6 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Revenue

4.2.7Existence of Software House

The existence of the software houses was divided into four main groups like less than 2
years, 2 to 4 years, 4 to 6 years and above 6 years. The Table 4.8 and figure 4.7 showed
that 6(6%) respondents were from those software houses who had less than 2 years to
62

exist, 10(10%) respondents were from those software houses who had 2 to 4 years to
exist, 7(7%) respondents were from those software houses who had 4 to 6 years to exist
and 77(77%) respondents were from those software houses who had 2 to 4 years to exist.
This implies that most of the software houses have existence of above 6 years, it means
software houses were more competent and providing high quality work in project
portfolios.
Table 4.8 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Existence of S.H

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 2

6.0

6.0

6.0

2-4

10

10.0

10.0

16.0

4-6

7.0

7.0

23.0

Above 6

77

77.0

77.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Existence - Frequency
2 to 4

4 to 6

Above 6

Up to 2

6% 10%
7%

77%

Figure 4.7 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Existence of S.H

4.2.8 Specialty of Software House

The specialty of the software houses was divided into four main categories like databases,
mobile apps, websites, and multiple technologies. The Table 4.9 and figure 4.8 showed
63

that 2(2%) respondents were from those software houses who deal in databases, 4(4%)
respondents were from who deal in mobile apps, 8(8%)respondents were from those who
deal in websites, 86(86%) respondents were from those who deal in multiple
technologies. This showed that most of the software houses were dealing in all
technologies. This supported the diversity of the operations of software houses.
Table 4.9 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Specialty

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Databases

.8

2.0

2.0

Mobile apps

1.5

4.0

6.0

Websites

3.1

8.0

14.0

86

86.0

86.0

100.0

100

38.6

100.0

Multiple Technologies
Total

Specialty - Frequency
DATABASES

MOBILE APPS

MULTIPLE TECHNOLOGIES

WEBSITES

8% 2% 4%

86%

Figure 4.8 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Specialty

4.2.9 Span of Software House

The span of the software houses were divided into four main categories like within
Pakistan, within subcontinent, within Asia and across the world wide. The Table 4.10 and
64

figure 4.9 showed that 18(18%) respondents were from those software houses who deal
within Pakistan, 8(8%) deal within subcontinent, 14(14%) deal within Asia and 60(60%)
deal across the world wide. These percentages mentioned that most of the software
houses were operating internationally.

Table 4.10 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Span of Software House

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Within Pakistan

18

18.0

18.0

18.0

Within Subcontinent

8.0

8.0

26.0

Within Asia

14

14.0

14.0

40.0

Across the World Wide

60

60.0

60.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Span - Frequency
across the world wide

within asia

within pakistan

within subcontinent

14%
18%
60%

8%

Figure 4.9 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Span of Software House

4.2.10 CMMI Ranking of Software House

The CMMI ranking of the software houses was divided into four main levels explained as
level 1, level 2, level 3 and level 4. The Table 4.11and figure 4.10 showed that 28(28%)
65

respondents were from those software houses who had level 1, 22(22%) have level 2,
47(47%) had level 3 and 3(3%) had level 4. These percentages mentioned that most of
the software houses have level 3 of CMMI ranking; it means these software houses have
high certification due to high quality of work and good reputation.
Table 4.11 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: CMMI Ranking

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Level 1

28

28.0

28.0

28.0

Level 2

22

22.0

22.0

50.0

Level 3

47

47.0

47.0

97.0

Level 4

3.0

3.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

CMMI Ranking - Frequency

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

3%
28%
46%
22%

Figure 4.10 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: CMMI Ranking

4.2.11 Certifications of Software House

The certifications of the software houses were divided into four main certifications like
ISO certified, IEEE certified, both a and b and others. The Table 4.12 and figure 4.11
66

showed that 46(46%) respondents were from those software houses who was ISO
certified, 19(19%) had IEEE certified, 24(24%) had both ISO and IEEE certified and
11(11%) had other certifications. This implies that most of the software houses in Lahore
were ISO certified.

Table 4.12 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Certifications

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

ISO certified

46

46.0

46.0

46.0

IEEE certified

19

19.0

19.0

65.0

Both a and b

24

24.0

24.0

89.0

Others

11

11.0

11.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Certification - Frequency
Both A & B

IEEE Certified

11%

45%

ISO Certified

Others

24%

19%

Figure 4.11 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Certifications

4.2.12 Clients of Software House

67

The clients of the software houses were divided into four main groups like international,
national, local and both a and b. The Table 4.13 and figure 4.12 showed that 69(69%)
respondents were from those software houses who had International clients, 19(19%) had
national clients, 2(2%) had local clients and 10(10%) had both international and national
clients. These percentages mentioned that due to high quality not only national clients but
also international clients relied on the services provided by software houses in Lahore.

Table 4.13 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Clients

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

International

69

69.0

69.0

69.0

National

19

19.0

19.0

88.0

Local

2.0

2.0

90.0

Both a and b

10

10.0

10.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Clients - Frequency
Both A & B

International

19%

Local

National

10%

2%

69%

Figure 4.12 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Clients

4.2.13 Number of Portfolios in Software House

68

The number of portfolios in the software houses was divided into four main brackets like
less than 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.14 and figure 4.13 showed that
40(40%) respondents were from those software houses who had dealing with less than 2
portfolios, 18(18%) had dealing with 2 to 4 portfolios, 14(14%) had dealing with 4 to 6
portfolios and 28(28%) had dealing with above 6 portfolios. These percentages showed
that mostly software houses were managing less than two portfolios at a time, but in one
portfolio large number of projects were monitored.

Table 4.14 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: No of Portfolios

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 2

40

40.0

40.0

40.0

2-4

18

18.0

18.0

58.0

4-6

14

14.0

14.0

71.0

Above 6

28

28.0

28.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

No. of Portofolios - Frequency

2 to 4

4 to 6

Above 6

Less than 2

18%
39%

14%
28%

Figure 4.13 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: No of Portfolios

4.2.14 Number of Projects in Software House

69

The number of projects in the software houses was divided into four main categories like
Less than 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.15 and figure 4.14 showed that
10(10%) respondents were from those software houses who had dealing with less than 2
portfolios, 14(14%) had dealing with 2 to 4 portfolios, 14(14%) had dealing with 4 to 6
portfolios and 62(62%) had dealing with above 6 portfolios. The study perceived that
mostly software houses were dealing diversified and large number of projects.

Table 4.15 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: No of Projects

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

2-4

10

10.0

10.0

10.0

4-6

14

14.0

14.0

24.0

6-8

14

14.0

14.0

38.0

Above 8

62

62.0

62.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

No. of Projects - Frequency

2 to 4

4 to 6

6 to 8

Above 8

10%
14%
62%

14%

Figure 4.14 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: No of Projects

4.2.15 Number of Projects successful in Software House

70

The number of projects successful in the software houses was divided into four main
groups like 2 to 4, 4 to 6, 6 to 8 and above 8. The Table 4.16 and figure 4.15 showed that
9(9%) respondents were from those software houses who had dealing with 2 to 4 projects
successful, 11(11%) had dealing with 4 to 6 projects successful, 20(20%) had dealing
with 6 to 8 projects successful and

60(60%) had dealing with above 8 projects

successful. These results showed that most of the projects were successfully managed by
software houses in Lahore.
Table 4.16 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Projects Successful

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

2-4

9.0

9.0

9.0

4-6

11

11.0

11.0

20.0

6-8

20

20.0

20.0

41.0

Above 8

60

60.0

60.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Successful Projects - Frequency

2 to 4

4 to 6

6 to 8

Above 8

9%
11%
60%

20%

Figure 4.15 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Projects Successful

4.2.16 Number of Project Portfolio Managers in Software House

71

The number of project portfolio managers in the software houses was divided into four
main brackets like Less than 2, 3 to 4 and 5 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.17 and figure
4.16 showed that 77(77%) respondents were from those software houses who had Less
than 2 project portfolio managers, 7(7%) had 3 to 5 project portfolio managers, 15(15%)
had 5 to 6 project portfolio managers and 1(1%) had less than 6 project portfolio
managers. From this the study perceived that most of the software houses in Lahore
employed less than 2 project portfolio managers.
Table 4.17 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Project Portfolio Managers

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 2

77

77.0

77.0

77.0

3-4

7.0

7.0

84.0

56

15

15.0

15.0

99.0

Above 6

1.0

1.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

No. of PPMs - Frequency

3 to 4

5 to 6

Above 6

Less than 2

1% 7%
15%

77%

Figure 4.16 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Project Portfolio Managers

4.2.17 Number of Project Managers in Software House

72

The number of project managers in the software houses was divided into four main
brackets like Less than 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.18 and figure 4.17
showed that 4(4%) respondents were from those software houses who had less than 2
project managers, 18(18%) had 2 to 4 project managers, 18(18%) had 4 to 6 project
managers and 60(60%) had above 6 project managers. The study explained that most of
the software houses in Lahore employed more than six project managers with good skills
and experience.

Table 4.18 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Project Managers

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 2

4.0

4.0

4.0

2-4

18

18.0

18.0

22.0

4-6

18

18.0

18.0

40.0

Above 6

60

60.0

60.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

No. of PMs - Frequency

3 to 4

5 to 6

Above 6

Less than 2

4% 18%
18%
60%

Figure 4.17 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Project Managers

4.2.18 Project Worth of Software House

73

The project worth of software houses was divided into three main categories like less
than 1 million, between 1 & 2 million and more than 2 million. The Table 4.19 and figure
4.18 showed that 29(29%) respondents were from those software houses had project
worth of less than 1 million, 37(37%) had project worth of between 1 & 2 million and
34(34%) had project worth of more than 2 million. The study implies that software
houses in Lahore were highly reputed and high budgeted, and also managing high
budgeted projects.

Table 4.19 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Project Worth

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Less than 1 million

29

29.0

29.0

29.0

Between 1 & 2 million

38

38.0

38.0

67.0

More than 2 million

33

33.0

33.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Project Worth - Frequency

Above 2 million

between 1 to 2 million

29%

up to 1 million

33%

37%

Figure 4.18 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Project Worth

74

4.2.19 Information About

The information about managers was divided into five main brackets like top managers,
line managers, project portfolio managers, project managers and both a and d. The Table
4.20 and figure 4.19 showed that 30(30%) information was provided by top managers,
6(6%) information was provided about line managers, 8(8%) information was about
project portfolio managers, 34(34%) information was about project managers and
22(22%) information was about both top and project managers. As the data showed that
most of the respondents were project managers this implies that information gathered was
more reliable and accurate.
Table 4.20 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Information About

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Valid

Top Manager

30

30.0

30.0

30.0

Line Manager

6.0

6.0

36.0

Project Portfolio Manager

8.0

8.0

44.0

Project Manager

34

34.0

34.0

78.0

Both a and d

22

22.0

22.0

100.0

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Information Given About - Frequency

both a and d

line managers

project managers

project portfolio manager

top managers

30% 22%
6%
8%
33%

Figure 4.19 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Information About

75

4.3 Descriptive Analysis

The Descriptive analysis is a procedure allowing the researcher to sketch and give
explanation of many crucial parts of data with a small number of indexes. The measures
of central tendency and measures of variability i.e. mean, maximum, minimum, standard
deviation and variance are explained in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21 Descriptive Analysis

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Variance

ISE

100

3.00

5.00

4.0597

.41875

.175

RVC

100

3.00

5.00

4.0764

.41221

.170

RVS

100

3.00

5.00

4.0560

.47254

.223

RC

100

3.00

5.00

4.1400

.38815

.151

PPMS

100

1.00

5.00

3.8700

.93701

.878

Valid N (list wise)

100

Table 4.21 shows that Variance of Internal Stakeholders Engagement (ISE) which is an
independent variable (0.175) is lesser than its standard deviation (0.41875), which
mention that most of the respondents remained higher than the mean value for this
variable. The mean value is 4.0597. Results indicate that software houses have
involvement of internal stakeholders. Mean value more than 3.5 and standard deviation
less than 1 show positive response (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). This study explains that
internal stakeholders have much involvement in the project portfolio management
success. Internal stakeholders like top managers, line managers, project portfolio
managers and project managers have much involvement in the project portfolio
management success.
Variance of Relationship Value of Customers (RVC) which is independent variable is
(0.170) which is lesser than its Standard Deviation (0.41221), which shows that most of
the respondents remained higher than the mean value for this variable. The mean value is
4.0764. Result shows that involvement of external stakeholders like relationship value of
customers is high. In software houses mostly customized projects are managed thats why
76

customer involvement is high in this study. This study mentions that external stakeholders
like relationship value of customers also show high involvement in the project portfolio
management success.
Variance of Relationship Value of Suppliers (RVS) which is independent variable is
(0.223) which is lower than its standard deviation (0.47254), which shows that most of
the respondents remain much higher than the mean value for this variable. The mean
value for this variable is 4.0560. Results mention that involvement of external
stakeholders like relationship value of suppliers is also high. This study shows that
involvement of external stakeholders as relationship value of suppliers is also high in
project portfolio management success.
Variance of moderator Role Clarity (RC) is (0.151) smaller than its standard deviation
which is (0.38815), which describe that most of the values go higher than the mean value
for this variable. The mean value is 4.1400 for this variable. Mean value is much high of
this variable. Mean value above than 3.5 shows that variable is performing higher than its
average value which is good or in favor of the study (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013).
Descriptive results for this study mention that moderator have much involvement in
increasing the project portfolio success. Role clarity enhances the level of success for
project portfolio management in this study. Role clarity has positive results in the favor of
this study.
Variance of the project portfolio management (PPMS) success which is a dependent
variable is (0.878) is lower than its standard deviation (0.93701), which explain that most
of the values remain higher than the average value. The mean value is 3.870 for this
dependent variable. All independent variables have mean values greater than 3.5. This
shows that all the independent variables and moderating variable has positive impact on
the dependent variable project portfolio management success.

77

Correlations were calculated to test the planned relationship and involvement among the
dependent and independent variables. Pearsons coefficient of correlation have been used
by using SPSS 20.0
4.4.1 Pearsons Correlation
Pearsons correlation was used because the study planned a linear relationship between
variables with one another. All independent and dependent variables show significance at
0.05. Table 4.22 describes the Pearsons coefficient of correlation among different
variables.
Table 4.22 Pearsons Coefficient of Correlations

Pearson Correlation
ISE

RVC

RVS

RC

PPM
S

ISE

RVC

RVS

RC

PPMS

.605**

.522**

.479**

.244*

.000

.000

.000

.014

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

100

100

100

100

100

Pearson Correlation

.605**

.806**

.674**

.427**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

100

100

100

100

100

Pearson Correlation

.522**

.806**

.609**

.380**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

100

100

100

100

100

Pearson Correlation

.479**

.674**

.609**

.310**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

100

100

100

100

100

Pearson Correlation

.244*

.427**

.380**

.310**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.014

.000

.000

.002

100

100

100

100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

78

.002

100

According to the Table 4.22

1. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for RVC and ISE is (0.605). Generally
variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation between 0.4 to 0.7 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated as weak to
strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship between RVC and ISE is
positively correlated because (r = 0.605, p < 0.05). RVC and ISE show strong
positive correlation between these two variables.
2. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for RVS and ISE is (0.522). Normally
variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation more than 0.4 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated (Sekaran &
Bougie, 2013). So relationship between RVS and ISE is correlated because (r =
0.522, p < 0.05). RVS and IS show positive correlation between these two
variables.
3. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for RVS and RVC is (0.806).
Generally variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation more than 0.7 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be highly correlated
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship between RVS and RVC is highly
correlated because (r = 0.806, p < 0.05). RVS and RVC show highly strong
positive correlation between these two variables.
4. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for RC and ISE is (0.479). Normally
variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation between .40 to 0.70 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated week to
strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between RC and ISE is
moderately correlated because (r = 0.479, p < 0.05). RC and ISE show positive
correlation between these two variables.
5. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for RC and RVC is (0.674). Normally
variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation between .40 to 0.70 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated week to
strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between RC and RVC
strongly correlated because (r = 0.674, p < 0.05). RC and RVC show strongly
positive correlation between these two variables.

79

6. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for RC and RVS is (0.609). Normally
variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation between .40 to 0.70 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated week to
strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between RC and RVS
is also strongly correlated because (r = 0.609, p < 0.05). RC and RVS show
strongly positive correlation between these two variables.
7. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and ISE is (0.244).
Normally variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation less than .40 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be weakly correlated
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPS and ISE is
strongly correlated because (r = 0.244, p < 0.05). PPMS and ISE show weak
positive correlation between these two variables.
8. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and RVC is (0.427).
Normally variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation more than 0.40 and
significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated (Sekaran &
Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPMS and RVC is correlated
because (r = 0.427, p < 0.05). PPMS and RVC show positive correlation between
these two variables.
9. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and RVS is (0.380).
Normally variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation near to 0.40 or
exact 0.40 and significance at p-value is less than 0.05 are assumed to be
correlated (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPMS and
RVS is correlated because (r = 0.380, p < 0.05). PPMS and RVS show positive
correlation between these two variables.
10. The Pearsons coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and RC is (0.310). Normally
variables with a Pearsons coefficient of correlation near to 0.40 or exact 0.40 and
significance at p-value is less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated (Sekaran &
Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPMS and RC is slightly
correlated because (r = 0.310, p < 0.05). PPMS and RC show positive correlation
between these two variables.

80

4.4.2Collinearity Diagnostic Test

Some independent variables show high correlation with each other. To check the
Multicollinearity among independent variables Collinearity diagnostic test have been
employed on the data with the help of SPSS 20.0.
Table - 4.23CollinearityStatistics
Model

Tolerance

VIF

(Constant)
ISE
RVC
RVS
RC

.622
.270
.342
.526

1.606
3.707
2.925
1.900

Variance inflation factor (VIF) <10= no Multicollinearity

Table 4.23 mentions the scores of the variance inflation factor of independent variables.
Table also mentions the values of tolerance for each independent variable. The value of
tolerance > 0.20 will be favorable and score of variance inflation factor < 10 will be
acceptable (Freund et al., 2010). The scores of variance inflation factor of all independent
variables are less than 10 and values of tolerance for each independent variable is more
than 0.20, so there is no Multicollinearity among the independent variable

81

4.5 Model Evaluation

Model evaluation analyzed by the employing the reliability and secondly the significance
of hypothesized model.
4.5.1 Measuring Reliability
Reliability had been measured by Cronbachs alpha. Values of alpha were explained by
the table 4.24.
Table 4.24 Reliability

Internal Stakeholders
Engagement (ISE)
Relationship Value of
Customers (RVC)
Relationship Value of
Suppliers (RVS)
Role Clarity
Project Portfolio
Management Success
(PPMS)
Overall

Cronbachs Alpha
0.967

No. of Items
29

0.905

11

0.929

10

0.790
0.908

4
6

0.973

60

Table 4.24 showed the values of Cronbachs alpha and number of items by each variable.
The study used Cronbachs alpha for finding the reliability of items. Cronbachs alpha
measured if items in chosen instrument are significantly correlated. Reliability values
above 0.60 were good and significant (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). The overall model
reliability is 0.973which is highly reliable and individual variables reliability is also with
high values as explained in the table 4.24.

82

4.6 Verification of independent variables by Pair wise Hierarchal Regression

Verification of model analyzed independently for each independent variable. For
regression analysis Zcrores has been used during moderation testing in analysis. Unger et
al. (2012) had also been used the Zscores for moderation testing. We would be testing our
hypotheses by employing pair wise hierarchal regression as it reduced the chances of
committing Type I and Type II errors (Mazzocchi, 2008). This method is considered best
for theory testing as pair wise regression techniques are influenced by random variation
in the data (Field, 2009).Within hierarchal regression, we entered our predictors based on
the approach proposed by (Zhou, et al., 2005). Recently (Alvi, 2013) also used pair wise
hierarchal regression in his analysis.
4.6.1 Verification of Internal Stakeholders Engagement
Verification of internal stakeholders engagement has been explained by the following
tables.
Table 4.25 Model Summary for ISE

Model
1
2
3

R Square

Adjusted R

Std. Error of

Square

the Estimate

.244

.060

.050

.97460826

.329

.108

.090

.95418768

.145

.118

.93905352

.381

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC), (ISE*RC)

Table 4.25 highlight the value of R square is 0.145 for the internal stakeholders
engagement which is an independent variable. According to the (Sekaran & Bougie,
2013) R square > 0.25 is significant and show strong relationship between independent
and dependent variable. For independent variables R square less than 0.25 is also
acceptable. And standard error < 1.0 also show strong relationship among independent
and dependent variables. Table 4.25 mention (R square = 0.145, standard error =
0.93905). These results show positive relationship between internal stakeholders
engagement, role clarity and project portfolio success. According to the results show in
table 4.25 internal stakeholders engagement have positive relationship with the project
portfolio management success.
83

Table 4.26 ANOVA for ISE

Model

Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

6.226

.014b

5.867

.004c

5.423

.002d

Squares
1

Regression

5.914

5.914

Residual

93.086

98

.950

Total

99.000

99

Regression

10.684

5.342

Residual

88.316

97

.910

Total

99.000

99

Regression

14.345

4.782

Residual

84.655

96

.882

Total

99.000

99

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC)
d. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC), (ISE*RC)

Table 4.27 Coefficients for ISE

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

.000

1.000

2.495

.014

.000

1.000

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

-3.349E-015

.097

Zscore(ISE)

.244

.098

(Constant)

-1.015E-015

.095

Zscore(ISE)

.125

.109

.125

1.141

.257

Zscore(RC)

.250

.109

.250

2.289

.024

(Constant)

-.057

.098

-.586

.559

Zscore(ISE)

.101

.108

.101

.936

.351

Zscore(RC)

.234

.108

.234

2.172

.032

.121

.059

.195

2.038

.044

Interaction1
(ISE*RC)

Beta
.244

a. Dependent Variable: Zscores(PPMS)

Table 4.26 mentions the results of ANOVA. Model show values (F = 5.423, p = 0.002).
Sekaran & Bougie (2013) explained p < 0.05 considered significant. So model for

84

internal stakeholders engagement is highly significant according to these results. Overall

model shows positive significant results.
Table 4.27 shows the results of beta coefficients and significance level for the internal
stakeholders engagement. Model mention the values for internal stakeholders ( = 0.101,
p = 0.351) it means internal stakeholders engagement have positive relationship with the
project portfolio management success but not significant change occur in the project
portfolio management success due to internal stakeholders engagement. Role clarity
independently show results ( = 0.234, p = 0.032). (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) explained p
< 0.05 considered significant. This shows that role clarity independently have positive
significant effect on the project portfolio management success. Results of the interaction
of internal stakeholders engagement and role clarity shows that ( = 0.195, p = 0.044).
According to these results role clarity as a moderator is working. Internal stakeholders
engagement with moderating effect has significant positive effect on the project portfolio
management success. Internal stakeholders engagement impact on project portfolio
management success is insignificant, but with moderating effect of the role clarity
internal stakeholders engagement have positive and significant effect on the project
portfolio management success.
4.6.2 Verification of Customers Engagement
Verification of customers engagement had been explained by the following tables.
Table 4.28 Model Summary for RVC
Model
1
2

R Square

Adjusted R

Std. Error of

Square

the Estimate

.427

.182

.174

.90906264

.478

.229

.213

.88729329

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC), (RVC*RC)

Table 4.28 highlight the value of R square is 0.229 for the customers engagement which
is an independent variable. According to the (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) R square > 0.25 is
85

significant and show strong relationship between independent and dependent variable.
For independent variables R square less than 0.25 is also acceptable. And standard error
<1.0 also show strong relationship among independent and dependent variables. Table
4.28 mention (R square = 0.229, standard error = 0.88729). These results show positive
relationship between customer engagement and project portfolio success. According to
the results show in table 4.28 customer engagement has positive relationship with the
project portfolio management success.
Table 4.29 ANOVA for RVC

Model

Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

21.797

.000b

14.374

.000c

Squares
1

Regression

18.013

18.013

Residual

80.987

98

.826

Total

99.000

99

Regression

22.633

11.316

Residual

76.367

97

.787

Total

99.000

99

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC), (RVC*RC)

Table 4.29 mentions the results of ANOVA. Model show values (F = 14.374, p = 0.000).
Sekaran & Bougie, (2013) explained p < 0.05 considered significant. So model for
customers engagement is highly significant according to these results. Overall model for
this independent variable shows positive and significant results.

86

Table 4.30 Coefficients for RVC

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

.000

1.000

4.669

.000

-.879

.382

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

-3.595E-015

.091

Zscore(RVC)

.427

.091

(Constant)

-.084

.095

Zscore(RVC)

.391

.090

.391

4.333

.000

.125

.052

.219

2.422

.017

Interaction2
(RVC*RC)

Beta
.427

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

Table 4.30 show the results of beta coefficients and significance level for the customers
engagement. Model mention the values for customer engagement ( = 0.391, p = 0.000)
it means customers engagement have positive and highly significant relationship with
the project portfolio management success Sekaran & Bougie, 2013 explained p < 0.05
considered significant. This Results of the interaction of customers engagement and role
clarity shows that ( = 0.219, p = 0.017). According to these results role clarity as a
moderator is working. Customer engagement is also significant with the moderating
effect of the role clarity. Customers engagement has significant effect on the project
portfolio management success. Customers engagement with moderator also enhanced
the effect on the project portfolio management success.
4.6.3 Verification of Suppliers Engagement
Verification of suppliers engagement had been explained by the following tables.
Table 4.31 Model Summary for RVS
Model
1
2

Adjusted-R

S.E.

of

Square

Square

Estimate

.380

.145

.136

.92949893

.430

.185

.168

.91217905

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS), (RVS*RC)

87

the

Table 4.31 highlight the value of R square is 0.185 for the suppliers engagement which is
an independent variable. According to the (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) R square > 0.25 is
significant and show strong relationship between independent and dependent variable.
For independent variables R square less than 0.25 is also acceptable. And standard error <
1.0 also show strong relationship among independent and dependent variables. Table 4.31
mention (R square = 0.185, standard error = 0.91217). These results show positive
relationship between supplier engagement and project portfolio success. According to the
result supplier engagement has positive relationship with the project portfolio
management success.

Table 4.32 ANOVA for RVS

Model

Sum of

df

Mean Square

Sig.

16.588

.000b

10.990

.000c

Squares
1

Regression

14.331

14.331

Residual

84.669

98

.864

Total

99.000

99

Regression

18.289

9.145

Residual

80.711

97

.832

Total

99.000

99

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS), (RVS*RC)

Table 4.32 mentions the results of ANOVA. Model show values (F = 10.990, p = 0.000).
Sekaran & Bougie (2013) explained p < 0.05 considered significant. So model for
suppliers engagement is highly significant according to these results. Overall model for
this independent variable shows positive and significant results

88

Table 4.33 Coefficients for RVS

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

.000

1.000

4.073

.000

-.786

.434

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

-2.952E-015

.093

Zscore(RVS)

.380

.093

(Constant)

-.077

.098

Zscore(RVS)

.330

.095

.330

3.488

.001

.127

.058

.206

2.181

.032

Interaction3
(RVS*RC)

Beta
.380

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

Table 4.33 show the results of beta coefficients and significance level for the suppliers
engagement. Model mention the values for supplier engagement ( = 0.330, p = 0.001) it
means suppliers engagement have positive and highly significant relationship with the
project portfolio management success Sekaran & Bougie (2013) explained p < 0.05
considered significant. This Results of the interaction of suppliers engagement and role
clarity shows that ( = 0.206, p = 0.032). According to these results role clarity as a
moderator is working. Suppliers engagement is also significant with the moderating
effect of the role clarity. Suppliers engagement has significant effect on the project
portfolio management success. Suppliers engagement with moderator also enhances the
effect on the project portfolio management success.

89

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

The study used pair wise hierarchal regression model for each independent variable for
examining the hypotheses:
Table 4.34 Hypothesis Results

Hypothesis
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6

Beta

Significanc

0.101
0.391
0.330
0.195
0.219
0.206

e
0.351
0.000***
0.001***
0.044***
0.017***
0.032***

*** Significant at 0.05 significance level (two-tailed)

Hypothesis for Internal Stakeholders Engagement

H1: The greater the internal stakeholders engagement in PPM, the better prospects
for success of PPM.
First hypothesis of the study described the positive relationship between internal
stakeholders and project portfolio management success. Internal stakeholders are top
managers, line managers, project portfolio managers and project managers. According to
the study presumptions the analysis does not show a significant relationship between ISE
and PPMS ( = 0.101, p =0.351). This hypothesis related to the internal stakeholders
engagement did not have significant effect on the project portfolio management success.
This hypothesis is rejected. The relationship between ISE and PPMS has been proven
significant in literature. Some internal stakeholders have significant effect on the project
portfolio management success (Beringer et al., 2013)
Hypotheses for External Stakeholders
Hypotheses for external stakeholders are given as:
H2:The greater the customers engagement in PPM, the better prospects for success of
PPM.
This hypothesis deduced positive relationship between customers engagement and
project portfolio management success. According to the study presumptions analysis also
90

show significant and positive relationship between customers engagement and project
portfolio management success ( = 0.391, p = 0.000). Hypothesis for customer
engagement is accepted.
H3: The more effectively suppliers engagement during PPM, the better prospects for
Success of PPM.
This hypothesis explained positive relationship between suppliers engagement and
project portfolio management success. According to the study presumption analysis also
show significant and positive relationship between suppliers engagement and project
portfolio management success ( = 0.330, p = 0.001). Hypothesis for suppliers
engagement is substantiated.
Hypotheses for Moderation
The study tends to explore the impact of internal stakeholders engagement (top
managers, line managers, project portfolio managers and project managers) and external
stakeholders engagement (customers and suppliers) with moderating effect of role clarity
on the project portfolio management success. The study tends to examine mediation
effects through three hypotheses. Which are explained as given:
H4: Role clarity moderates the relationship between internal stakeholders
engagement and project portfolio management success.
H5: Role clarity moderates the relationship between customer's engagement and
project portfolio management success.
H6: Role clarity moderates the relationship between supplier's engagement and
project portfolio management success.
Table 4.34 mentions the results of the hypotheses. Hypothesis for internal stakeholders
engagement is 4. In the model assumed that internal stakeholders engagement have
positive relationship with moderating effect on the project portfolio management success.
According to the study presumptions analysis also show that internal stakeholders
engagement have significant and positive effect with moderation on the project portfolio
management success ( = 0.195, p = 0.044). Hypothesis related to the internal
stakeholders engagement (ISE) with moderation (RC) have significant and positive on
the project portfolio management success (PPMS) is substantiated.

91

Table 4.34 also mentions the results of the hypotheses for external stakeholders
engagement. Hypothesis 5 mentions the positive effect of customers engagement with
moderating effect on the project portfolio management success. Analysis also favors the
study presumptions. Analysis show that role clarity moderates the relationship between
customers engagement and project portfolio management success ( = 0.219, p = 0.017).
Hypothesis for customers engagement (RVC) with moderation (RC) have positive and
significant effect on the project portfolio management success (PPMS) is substantiated.
Table 4.34 also mentions the results of the hypotheses for external stakeholders
engagement. Hypothesis 6 mentioned the positive effect of suppliers engagement with
moderating effect of role clarity on the project portfolio management success. Analysis
also favors the study presumptions. Analysis show that role clarity moderates the
relationship between suppliers engagement and project portfolio management success (
= 0.206, p = 0.032). Hypothesis for suppliers engagement (RVS) with moderation (RC)
have positive and significant effect on the project portfolio management success (PPMS)
is substantiated.

4.8 Findings
The study explains that most of the respondents had designation of project managers in
the software houses (i.e.51%). Majority of the respondents were males in the software
houses (i.e. 92%). Most of the respondents had overall experience above 10 years in the
software houses (i.e. 47%). Mostly respondents had experience of project portfolio
management up to 2 years in the software houses (i.e. 34%). Most of the software houses
had employees less than 50 (i.e. 69%). Mostly software houses had annual revenue up to
1$ million (i.e. 63%). Mostly software houses existed from 2 to 4 years (i.e. 77%). Most
of the software houses were deal in multiple technologies (i.e. 86%). Most of the
software houses had span across the world wide (i.e. 60%). Mostly software houses had
CMMI ranking at level 3 (i.e. 47%). Mostly software houses had certifications of ISO
(i.e. 46%). Most of the clients of the software houses were international (i.e. 69%).
Mostly the number of portfolios in the software houses was less than 2 (i.e. 40%). Mostly
the number of projects in the software houses was above 8 (i.e. 62%). Mostly the number
of projects in the software houses successful was above 8 (i.e. 60%). Mostly number of
92

project portfolio managers in the software houses was from 3 to 4 (i.e. 77%). Most of the
software houses had number of project managers above 6 (i.e. 60%). Most of the
software houses deal with the projects of worth 1 to 2 million (i.e. 38%). In this
instrument mostly information was provided about the top managers (i.e. 34%).
1. The study perceived the positive and significant relationship between the internal
stakeholders engagement (ISE) and project portfolio management success
(PPMS), literature also explained that internal stakeholders engagement have
significant effect on the project success (Beringer, et al. 2013), but results show
that internal stakeholders engagement (ISE) does not have significant effect on
the project portfolio management success (PPMS) ( = 0.101, p = 0.351). Study
perceived the positive and significant relationship between the internal
stakeholders engagement (ISE) and project portfolio management success
(PPMS) with moderating effect of the role clarity (RC). Results also favor the
study and show positive significant effect of the internal stakeholders
engagement on the project portfolio management success with moderating effect
of the role clarity (RC) ( = 0.195, p = 0.044).
2. Study perceived the positive and significant effect of customers engagement
(RVC) on the project portfolio management success (PPMS), results also prove
the perception of the study and show that customers engagement (RVC) has
positive and significant effect on the project portfolio management success
(PPMS) ( = 0.391, p = 0.000). Study also perceived that customers engagement
(RVC) has also significant and positive effect on the project portfolio
management success (PPMS) with moderating effect of the role clarity (RC).
Results also mention that customers engagement (RVC) has significant effect on
the project portfolio management success (PPMS) with moderation of role clarity
(RC) ( = 0.219, p = 0.017).
3. Study perceived the positive and significant effect of suppliers engagement
(RVS) on the project portfolio management success (PPMS), results also prove
the perception of the study and show that suppliers engagement (RVS) has
positive and significant effect on the project portfolio management success
(PPMS) ( = 0.330, p = 0.001). Study perceived that suppliers engagement
93

(RVS) has also significant and positive effect on the project portfolio management
success (PPMS) with moderating effect of the role clarity (RC). Results also favor
that suppliers engagement (RVS) has significant effect on the project portfolio
management success (PPMS) with moderation of role clarity (RC) ( = 0.206, p =
0.032).
Table 4.35 Hypotheses Status

#
H1
H2
H3
H4

H5
H6

Hypotheses
The greater the internal stakeholders engagement in PPM,
the better prospects for success of PPM.
The greater the customers engagement in PPM, the better
prospects for success of PPM.
The more effectively supplier engagement during PPM, the
better prospects for success of PPM.
Role clarity moderates the relationship between internal
stakeholders engagement and project portfolio management
success.
Role clarity moderates the relationship between customer's
engagement and project portfolio management success.
Role clarity moderates the relationship between supplier's
engagement and project portfolio management success.

94

Status
Rejected
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted

Accepted
Accepted

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This Chapter explains the conclusion of the study. This section also mentions the
limitations and recommendations for future research.
95

Conclusion
Based on the finding in chapter 4 internal stakeholders engagement (ISE) have
insignificant effect on the project portfolio management success (PPMS) while study
predicted the positive and significant effect of internal stakeholders engagement on the
project portfolio management success. In IT industry Lahore, Pakistan internal
stakeholders which consisted on the top managers, line managers, project portfolio
managers and project managers. Internal stakeholders are not engaged with the project
portfolios significantly thats why results show insignificance in their relationship.
Further involvement of role clarity which is working as a moderator shows significant
relationship

between

internal

stakeholders engagement

and project

portfolio

management success. It means role clarity (RC) enhance the effect of internal
stakeholders engagement (ISE) on the project portfolio management success (PPMS).
By defining the role to each stakeholder within the organization, it gives positive results
to the project portfolio management success. In this case role clarity shows full
moderation for the internal stakeholders engagement. Internal stakeholders engagement
is 14.5% explained in this model. Internal stakeholders engagement show positive
relationship between the project portfolio management success. External stakeholders
engagement has significant effect on the project portfolio management success. In IT
sector software houses mostly deal with the customize projects. Based on finding 2 in
chapter 4 customers engagement is necessary in this perspective. Finding 2 explain that
customers engagement has significant effect on the project portfolio management
success. So results show high level of significance for the customers engagement. Role
clarity also moderates the relationship of the customers engagement and project portfolio
management success. But these findings show partial moderation because customers
engagement is already highly significant and with moderation it also shows good
significance. Customers engagement is 22.9% explained by the model. Finding 3 in
chapter 4 for suppliers engagement also mention significant relationship between the
supplier engagement and project portfolio management. In IT sector some services and
raw material are used from the outside of the organization. The suppliers are also directly
engage with the project requirements. Suppliers also enhance the success of the project
portfolio management success. Finding 3 in chapter mentioned that suppliers
96

engagement have significant effect on the project portfolio management success. Results
with the moderating effect of role clarity show also good significance. But before
moderation significance level is high. It means moderation also enhanced the effect of the
suppliers engagement but partially. Suppliers engagement is 18.5% explained by the
model. All these independent variables are tested independently. All independent
variables show significant effect separately. So final results explained that internal and
external stakeholders engagement has significant impact with moderating role of role
clarity on the project portfolio management success.

Contribution of the Study

This particular model did not test before with both internal and external stakeholders
engagement impact on the project portfolio management success. Beringer, et al. 2013
tested the model with internal stakeholders engagement, but in this study both internal
and external stakeholders engagement has been tested. So this is a contribution to test
this model with the external stakeholders engagement with moderating effect of role
clarity. The present study applied individual testing for the independent variables. This
model has been tested in the IT sector, Lahore Pakistan which has not been tested before.
This is a first time study in the IT sector, Lahore, Pakistan.

Recommendations
1. Internal stakeholders engagement has insignificant impact on the project
portfolio management success without moderation. Role clarity necessary for the
internal stakeholders. Role clarity explained and direct internal stakeholders
towards their roles and responsibilities. Maximum results had been achieved from
the project portfolio management with engagement of internal stakeholders.
2. External stakeholders engagement like customers engagement has high level of
significance. Customers engagement has significant impact on the project
portfolio management success without moderation. It means there is partial
moderation of rile clarity for the customers. Customers engagement is also show
significant results with the moderation but level of significance is high before
moderation. So moderation is working partially with customers engagement.
97

3. Suppliers engagement is also part of the external stakeholders. Suppliers

engagement also has significant relationship with the project portfolio
management success. With moderation suppliers engagement also shows
significance but no more than before. So there is also partial moderation.
4. Role clarity is important and moderates the relationship between stakeholders
engagement within the organization and enhances the project portfolio
management success. For outside the organization role clarity works partially and
show significance for external stakeholders. In case of internal stakeholders
engagement role clarity fully moderate the relationship, it means role clarity
works more perfectly within the organization in comparison with external
organization.

Discussion
Purpose of this study was to find the relationship between stakeholders engagement and
project portfolio management success. In project portfolio management success
stakeholders were involved significantly or insignificantly while in study of Beringer et
al (2013) showed that internal stakeholders like top managers and project managers had
significant effect on the project portfolio management while line managers and project
portfolio managers had insignificant effect on the project portfolio management.
(Beringer et al., 2013) also explained that growing task of role clarity did not have
noteworthy effect of all internal stakeholders on the project portfolio management
success. Role clarity moderate the relationship of line managers and projects mangers,
while in case of project portfolio managers and top managers role clarity was not
effecting. Studies which have used role clarity as a moderator explained here. Role clarity
was used to moderate the relationship between role ambiguity and athlete satisfaction.
Role clarity moderated the relationship of both of these (Bray, Beauchamp, Eys, Carron,
2005). Another study explained that need for role clarity did not moderate the relationship
between the degree of role clarity and job satisfaction (Miles, Petty, 1975). Role clarity
used as moderator in both studies but in one it was moderating the relationship and in
another study it was not working as moderator. In this study role clarity moderated the
relationship strongly between the internal stakeholders and project portfolio management
98

success. In case of external stakeholders role clarity partially moderated the relationship
between external stakeholders and project portfolio management success. Voss and Kock
(2013) also found positive relationship values of customers. They found significant effect
of customers relationship value on the project portfolio management success. Customer
knowledge management had direct impact on the project performance (Yang et al., 2014).
The present study finds significant effect of internal stakeholders on the project portfolio
management success with distinct effect of their role clarity. Internal stakeholders
engagement like senior managers, line managers, project managers and project portfolio
managers all have significant and strong relationship with the project portfolio
management success with moderating effect of role clarity. While external stakeholders
engagement like customers and suppliers has significant and vital relationship with the
project portfolio management success and with moderation it partially moderated the
project portfolio management Success. Long term objectives gained by adding the
supplier involvement (Echtelt et al., 2004). Supplier involvement increased the product
value and quality (Witlox, 2010). He found positive effect of suppliers engagement in
the project and product development. This study found positive and significant effect of
the suppliers engagement on the project portfolio management success. In an
organization there was need of the role clarity to find positive and significant outcomes
because within the organization role clarity defined and clarify the roles of the managers.
In case of external environment role clarity did not perform well. The reason of this is
that in external environment we cannot hold the things and cannot define the role as
within the organization. In external environment there was things are continuously
changing and these changes also affect the customers and suppliers who are directly and
indirectly attached with the organization's performance. That's why role clarity partially
moderated the relationship between the external stakeholders and project portfolio
management success. Results of this study mentioned that external stakeholders have
significant effect on the project portfolio management success.

Limitations and Future Research

99

1. The current research model can be applied in other sectors e.g. construction, and
textile projects.
2. Further research can be done by adding more variables related to external
stakeholders in the current research model.
3. This study has been conducted in the IT sector in Lahore Pakistan, in other major
cities like Karachi and Islamabad might have different and better results.

Bibliography:
Ahmed, R., Azmi, N., Masood, T. M., Tahir, M., & Ahmad, S. M. (2013). What Does
Project Leadership Really Do? International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
100

Research, 4, 1-8.
Alvi, H., T. (2013). Impact of Moral Identity, Love of Money, Religiosity, and
Spirituality on Ethical Intention in Marketing-Moderating Effect of Ethical Work
Climate. Comsats Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
A Guide to the project management body of knowledge (2013), (5th ed.), Pennsylvania,
Project Management Institute, Inc.
Amarl, Antonio, Aroujo, & Madalena. (2009). Project portfolio management phases: A
technique for strategy alignment. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 58, 560-568.
Archer, NP. & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio
selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and
the scope of project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 1, 190-220.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Kock, A. (2013). Behavior of internal stakeholders in project
portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of
Project Management, 31, 830 - 846.
Blichfeldt, S., B., & Eskerod, P. (2008). Project portfolio management Theres more to
it than what management enacts. International Journal of Project Management,
26, 357-365.
Bray, R. S., Beauchamp, R. M., Eys, A. M., & Carron, V. A. (2005). Does the Need for
Role Clarity Moderate the Relationship between Role Ambiguity and Athlete
Satisfaction? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 306-318.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of
human resource management. International Journal of Project Management,
22(1), 1-11.
Bliese, D.P., & Castro, A.C. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational
support multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work & Stress, 14, 6573.
101

Catherine, P. K., & Robert, A. H. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio
management in service and manufacturing industries. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157169.
Carlsson, C., Fuller, R., Heikkila, M., & Majlender, P. (2007). A fuzzy approach to R&D
Project portfolio selection. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 44,
93105.
Calderini, R. S., Reyck, D. B., Cockayne, G. Y., Lockett, M., Moura, M., & Sloper, A.
(2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology
projects. Ashridge business school u.k.
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, J. S., & Kleinschmidst, J. (2001). Portfolio management for new
product development. Product Development Institute INC, 31(4), 1-39.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, J. S., & Kleinschmidt, J. (2000). New Problems,

New Solutions:
Making Portfolio Management More Effective. Research
Technology
Management, 43(2), 18-33.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, J. S., & Kleinschmidst, J. (1999). New product portfolio
management: practices and performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 16, 333-351.
Clarkson, E. B. M. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating
Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 92117.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success.
International Journal of Project Management. 32, 189-201.
Davies, C, T. (2002). The real success factors on projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 20, 185-190.
Dickinson, W. M., Thornton, C. A., & Graves, S. (2001). Technology Portfolio
102

Management: Optimizing Interdependent Projects Over Multiple Time Periods.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(4), 1-10.
Elonen, S., & Artto, A. K. (2002). Problems in managing internal development projects
in multi-project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21,
1-9.
Echtelt, A.E.F., Wynstra, F.Y.J., Weele, J.A., & Duysters, M.G. (2004). Critical
processes for managing supplier involvement in new product development: an indepth multiple-case study. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Netherlands.
Echtelt, A. E. F., Wynstra, F.Y.J., Weele, J.A., & Duysters, M.G. (2006). Managing
Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple-Case Study.
Erasmus Research Institute o f Management, the Netherlands.
Filippov, S., Mooi, H., & Weg, d. v. R. (2012). Strategic Project Portfolio Management:
an Empirical Investigation.RISUS,3, 9-23.
Frey, Thorsten, Buxmann, & Peter. (2011). The importance of Governance structures in
IT project portfolio management. European Conference on Information System,
3(4), 199-210.
Freund, J. R., Wilson, J. W., & Mohr, L. D. (2010). Statistical Methods (3rd ed.).
Haryana, India: Elsevier publishers.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage Publications Limited.
Faems, D., Looy, V. B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Inter-organizational Collaboration and
Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 22, 238250.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman Series in
Business and Public Policy Pitman, Boston.
Gutirrez, E., & Magnusson, M. (2013). Dealing with legitimacy: A key challenge for
Project Portfolio Management decision makers. International Journal of
Project Management, 32(1), 30-39.
Ghasemzadeh, F., & Archer, P. N. (2000). Project portfolio selection through decision
103

support. Decision Support Systems, 29, 73-88.

Hwang, G, B. & Ng, J, W. (2013). Project Management knowledge and skills for green
construction: overcoming challenges. International Journals of Project
Management, 31, 272-284.
Heisting, H. (2012). The integration of ideation and project portfolio management - A
key factor for sustainable success. International Journal of Project
Management, 30, 582-595.
Heiskanen, A. (2012). Project portfolio management. ISACA Journals, 3, 1-6.
Hunt, A. R., & Killen, P. C. (2008). Best practice project portfolio management.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 25, 1-5.
Harvey, R. C., Liechty, C. J., Liechty, W. M., & Mller, P. (2004). Portfolio Selection
with Higher Moments. Applied Financial Economics, 1, 589-618.
Jonas, D. (2010). Empowering project portfolio managers: How management
Involvement impacts project portfolio management performance. International
Journal of Project Management, 28, 818-831.
Kissi, J., Dainty, A., &Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational
leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of
Project Management,31, 485-497.
Killen, P, C., & Hunt, A, R., (2013). Robust project portfolio management: capability
Evolution and maturity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
6,131-151.
Killen, P, C. Jugdev, K. Drouin, N. & Petit, Y. (2012). Advancing project and portfolio
management research: Applying strategic management theories. International
Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 525-538.
Koh, A. (2011). Portfolio management: roles, responsibilities, and practices A
Qualitative study. Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture, 8(2), 112.
Killen, P. C., & Hunt, A.R. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio
management in service and manufacturing industries. International Journal of
104

Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157169.

Kohlborn, T., Fielt, E., Korthaus, A., & Rosemann, M. (2009). Towards a Service
Portfolio Management Framework. 20th Australasian Conference on
Information Systems, 861-870.
Killen, P. C., Hunt, A. R., &Kleinschmidt, J.E. (2008). Learning investments and
Organizational capabilities: Case studies on the development of project portfolio
management capabilities. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 1(3), 334 351.
Lacerda, O, D, T, R. Ensslin, E. & Ensslin, R, S. (2011). A performance measurement
framework in portfolio management. Management Decisions, 49(4), 648-668.
Levine, A, H. (2006). Project portfolio management: A practical guide to selecting
projects, managing portfolios and maximizing benefits. BC, 8, 1-7.
Linton, D. J., Walsh, T. S., & Morabito, J. (2002). Analysis, ranking and selection of
R&D project in a portfolio. Research and Development Management, 32(2), 110.
Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context.
International Journal of Project Management, 31, 794 - 803.
Madic, B., Trujic, V., & Mihajlovic, I. (2011). Project portfolio management
implementation review. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 240248.
Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio
management and its success A conceptual framework. International Journal
of Project Management, 28, 807-817.
Mattsson, K., M. (2010). Demarcating Risk Management Responsibilities of a Project
Manager. 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology,
1227 1232.
.
Miguel, C, A, P. (2008). Portfolio management and new product development
implementation. International journal of quality and reliability management,
25(1), 10-23.
Menon, A., Homburg, C., & Beutin, N. (2005). Understanding customer value in
business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
105

,12, 138.
Mazzocchi, M. (2008). Statistics for marketing and consumer research: SAGE
Publications Limited.
Martinsuo, M., &lehtonen, P. (2007). Role of single project management in achieving
portfolio management efficiency. International Journal of Project Management,
25, 56-65.
Munns, K. A., & Bjeirmi, F.B. (1996). The Role of Project Management in achieving
Project Success. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81-87.
Miles, H. R., & Petty, M. M. (1975). Relationships between role clarity, need for role
clarity, and job tension and satisfaction for supervisory and nonsupervisory roles.
18(4), 1-8.
Naverauskas, B., & Ciutiene, R. (2011). The theoretical approach to project portfolio
Maturity management. Economics and management, 16, 1-7.
Naqvi, H. I., Aziz, S., & Rehman, U. K. (2011). The impact of stakeholder
communication on project outcome. African Journal of Business Management,
5(14), 5824-5832.
Naqvi, H, I. (2009). Framework of IT project management: Human Resource
Management. U.S.A: LAP (Lambert academic publishing).
Olsson, R. (2006). Risk management in a multi-project Environment: An approach to
Manage portfolio risks. International Journal of Quality and Risk Management,
25, 1-12.
Platje, A., Seidel, H., & Wadman, S. (1994). Project and portfolio planning cycle:
Project-based management for the Multi-project challenge. International Journal
of Project Management, 12(2), 100-106.
Parise, S., & Casher, A. (2003). Alliance portfolios: Designing and managing your
network of Business-partner relationships. Academy of Management Executive,
17(4), 1-17.
Rosell, T. D. (2013). Knowledge Integration and Innovation in Buyer-Supplier
Collaborations. Linkping University, Sweden.
106

Raes, L.M.A., Heijltjes, G.M., Glunk, U., & Roe, A.R. (2011). The Interface of Top
Management Team and Middle Managers: A Process Model. Academy of
Management Review, 36, 102-126.
Ross, M. (2007). Project portfolio management planning: A method for prioritizing
projects. LLC, 31, 1-8.
Reyck, D. B., Cockayne, G.Y., Lockett, M., Calderini, R. S., Moura, M., & Sloper, A.,
(2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 524537.
Raz, T. & Micheal, E. (2001). Use and benefits of tools for project risk management.
International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 9-17.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A

Skill Building
Approach, 6th edition. Wiley Publishers, India.

Stretton, A. (2012). Portfolios and the project management literature. PM World

Journal, 1(3), 1-8.
Sanchez, H., Robert, B., & Pellerin, R. (2008). A project portfolio risk opportunity
Identification framework. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 97-109.
Sabaa, E. S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager.
International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 1-70.
Teller, J., Unger, N. B., Kock, A., & Gemunden, G. H. (2012). Formalization of project
Portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity.
International Journal of Project Management, 30, 596-607.
Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemnden, H.G., & Jonas, D., 2012. Enforcing strategic fit of
Project portfolios by project termination: an empirical study on senior
management involvement. International Journal of Project Management 30(6),
675685.
Voss, M., & Kock A. (2013). Impact of relationship value on project portfolio success:
107

investigating the moderating effects of portfolio characteristics and external

turbulence. International journal of project management, 31, 847 - 861.
Vinopal, J. (2012). Project portfolio management for academic libraries: a gentle
introduction. College and Research Libraries, 73(4), 379-389.
Witlox, G. (2010). Supplier involvement in New Product Development. Tilburg
University, Tilburg.
Ward, S. & Chapman, S. (2003). Transforming project risk management into project
uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 97105.
White, D & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management: an empirical
study. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 1-11.
Wynstra, F., & Pierick, T. E. (2000). Managing supplier involvement in new product
development: a portfolio approach. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6, 49-57.
Yang, R. L., Huang, F. C., & Hsu, J. T. (2014). Knowledge leadership to improve project
And organizational performance. International Journal of Project management,
32, 40-53.
Young, M., & Conboy, K. (2013). Contemporary project portfolio management:
reflections on the development of an Australian competency standard for project
portfolio management. International Journal of Project Management, 23 (7),
524-537.
Yang, R. L., Huang, F.C., &Wu, S. K. (2011). The association among project manager's
leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 29, 258-267.
Zhou, K. Z., Kin, C., &Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on
technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing,
69(2), 42-60.

108

APPENDIX I
Table 1 PASHA List
Sr
N
o
#
1
2
3

4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15

Company Name

CEO Name

CEO Email address

No. of
employe
es

7vals
AbacusConsulting
ABM Info
Tech(private)
limited
AGCN Pakistan
(pvt) Ltd
APEX consulting
Pakistan
Application
Management
outsourcing services
(AMOS) Global Pvt
Ltd
ARBISOFT
PRIVATE LTD
Arwen Tech (pvt.)
Limited
Autosoft Dynamics
(pvt.) Limited
Avanceon
AZM Computer
Services (pvt.) Ltd
B Solutions
Bahria Enterprise
Systems and
Technologies
(BEST)
Bramerz Private
Limited
CIKLUM
PAKISTAN (pvt.)

Syed Ali
Asad Ali Khan
Azam Sultan

Ayed.ali@7vals.com
Asad.khan@abacus-global.com
azamsultan@abmgroup.com

20
2000
62

Muhammad Faisal
Ahad Rao
Syed Sardar Ali

Faisal.rao@agnc-pakistan.com

60

Sardar.ali@apexconsulting.biz

52

Azhar H. Shore

a.shore@amos-global.com

35

Yasser Bashir

Yasser.bashir@arbisoft.com

100

Abdul
QadirSubhani
Mr. Lutfullah
Khan

Qadir.subhani@arwentech.com

150

ceo@autosoftdynamics.com

120

Ghulam Mustafa
Kamboh
FazalAshfaq
Muhammad Azam

gmk@azm.com.pk

30

fazal@bsolutions.pk
ceo@best-bf.com

5
35

ZeeshanSaleem

Zeeshan@bramerz.pk

55

Khushal Khan

109

16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

29

30

31
32
33
34
35
36

37

Ltd
Comstar
Information
Systems Associates
Ltd.
Confiz Solutions
Corvit Networks
CTO 24/7 Private
Limited
CureMD Healthcare
DGHarbour
DGS Private
Limited
Ebryx SMC Pvt.
Ltd
Edusys Pakistan
Expert Systems
(pvt) Ltd
Efro Tech Services
Five Rivers
Technologies(pvt)
Ltd
FOURGEN
Information
Systems(pvt) Ltd
Future Now
Technologies (pvt)
Ltd
GAMEVIEW
PAKISTAN
(PRIVATE)
LIMITED
GCS (PVT) LTD
GenITeam
Goldtime (pvt) Ltd
i2c
IBM
Inbox Business
Technologies Pvt.
Ltd
INFOGISTIC

Sami Bajwa

sbajwa@comstar.com.pk

125

Muhammad Raza
Saeed
Kashif-ul-Haq
Amin Ansari

Raza.saeed@confiz.com

150-200

aansari@cto247pk.com

90

Bilal Hashmat
Muhammad
Rahimtoola
Faizan Ali Siddiqi

Bilal.hashmat@curemd.com
m.rahimtoola@dgharbour.com

375
25

Faizan.siddiqi@dgsworld.com

480

M. Ahrar Naqvi

Ahrar@ebryx.com

60

Nouman Ali syed

Khalid Ahmed
Khan
Nadir Khan Feroz
Hasan A. Rizvi

Nouman.ali.syed@gmail.com
Khalid@expertsystems.net
nadir@efrotech.com
Hasan.rizvi@fiveriverstech.com

45

Ather Sultan
chawla

Ather.sultan@fourgensys.com

60

Muhammad
HanifMian

drhanif@tfntech.com

150

IRFAN
GAZANFER
VIRK

IRFAN@GAMEVSTUDIOS.CO
M

300

Mr. ShahidMuneer
KhurramSamad
Naveed Ahmed
Amir wain
Humayun Bashir
Ghias Khan

Shahid@gcspvt.com
Khurram@geniteam.com
naveed@goldteam.co.uk
awain@i2cinc.com
humayun@pk.ibm.pk
Ghias.khan@inboxbiz.com

130
42
18
330
500

Sajjad Kirmani
110

Sajjad.kirmani@infogistic.com

20

38
39
40
41
42
43
44

45
46
47
48
49
50
51

52
53
54

55
56

Private Limited
InfoTech
Private
Limited
Innovative
Integration Pvt Ltd
Intagleo
Systems
Pvt. Ltd
IT Minds Limited
Kabot International
(PVT)Ltd.
LMK
Resources
Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd
LumenSoft
Technologies
Pvt.
Ltd.
Maison Consulting
and Solutions
Mantaq Systems

Naseer
Ahmad Naseer.akhtar@infotechgroup.co
Akhtar
m
Syed Ahmer Ghazi Ahmer.ghazi@innovativeintegrati
on.net
Amar Ali
amarali@intagleo.co.uk

250

Syed Asif Shah

ArifToor

asif.shah@itminds.biz
arif.toor@kabotintl.com

22
70

AtifRais Khan

akhan@lmkr.com

600+

Abdul Aziz

aziz@lumensoft.biz

28

Sultan Hamdani

shamdani@maison-global.com

135

HashimZulfiqar
Ali
Marriala
Muhammad
Consultants
Arfaeen Iqbal
Mindstorm Studios
Babar Ahmed
Monet Pvt Ltd
Ali
Abbas
Sikander
Naseeb Networks
Monis Rahman
National Consulting Ahsan Saleem
for Business and
Management
Solutions (Private)
Limited

hashim.ali@mantaq.com

15

Arfaeen@marriala.net

10

babar@mindstormstudios.com
abbas.sikander@monetonline.com
monis@naseebnetworks.com
ahssaleem@ncbms.com.pk

20
11

NetSol
Off-Road Studios

salim.ghouri@netsoltech.com
Waqas@offroadstudios.com

1000
38

anjum.chohan@open-silicon.com

60

Salim Ghauri
Muhammad
Waqas
OPEN-SILICON
ANJUM
PAKISTAN
FAROOQ
(PVT)LTD
CHOHAN
Ora-Tech Systems Aspy N. Fatakia
(Pvt )Ltd
Ovex Technologies Faisal S Khan
Pakistan
(Pvt)
Limited
111

20
35

42
115

aspy.fataki@ora-tech.com
fkhan@ovextech.com

210

57
58
69
60
61
62
63
64

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

Ovex Technologies Syed

Amir
Pvt Limited
Hussain
Ozitechnology
Muhammad
Usman Sheikh
Palmchip Pakistan Jauher Zaidi
(Pvt.) Limited
Pring
Muqtaza Shah
Sabri Technologies
Sakonent
SensysPvt Ltd
SidatHyderMorshed
Associates
(Pvt.)
Ltd.
SitaraInfotechPvt
Ltd
SofizarPvt Ltd
Soft Solutions
Softech
Systems
(Pvt.) Limited
Solo Tech Corp
Strategic
Systems
International
Synergy Computers
Pvt Limited
Systems Limited

amirhussain@enpointe.com

550

ceo@ozitechnology.com

35

jauher@palmchip.com
Muqtaza.shah@panasiangroup.co
m
Moin.sabri@sabritech.com
Akif.rahman@sakonent.com
Sohail.qadir@sensys.com

40

Javed Iqbal

iqbalsitara@gmail.com

13

Zafar Khan
Ghulam Ali
Salman Iqbal

zkhan@sofizar.com
ali@softsolutions.com.pk
salman@softech.com.pk

64
10
85

Farhan Masood
RabiyaJunaid Aziz

fm@solotechcorp.co.uk
sashraf@ssidecisions.com

16
150

Iqbal Ahmed

Iqbal@synergy.net.pk

160

MoinSabri
Akif Rahman
SohailQadir
AroojAlam Khan

Mr.
Ashraf Ashraf.kapadia@systemsltd.com
Kapadia
Techaccess Pakistan Syed Iqtidar Zaidi izaidi@techaccesspak.com
Private Limited
The
Resource NadeemElahi
Naeem.elahi@trdworld.com
Group
TkXel
UmairJaved
umair@tkxel.com
TMR
Consulting Mian Muhammad mianramzan@tmrc.com.pk
(Private) Limited
Ramzan
Tricast
Media ARSLAN KHAN Arsalan.khakwani@tricastservices
Private Limited
KHAKWANI
.com
Viper Technologies KhushnoodAftab
k.aftab@viper.pk
Pvt Ltd.
Visionary Computer Zahid Raza
zahid@vcs.com.pk
Solutions PVT Ltd
VopiumAktieselskab QaisarJaved
Qaiser.javed@vopium.com
Pvt Ltd.
Wavetec
Private Ahmed Fraz
Ahmed.fraz@wavetec.com
112

50
125
78

1200
150
1500
109
30
51
200
46

150

82

83

Limited
Zahdan
Technologies
Limited
Dzine Media

Mr.
shehzad@zahdangroup.com
Pvt ShehzadShabbirDa
har
Usman Shajoor
Usman.shakoor@dzinemedia.com

30

13

Table 2 ARFA KAREEM Software Houses Detailed List

S
r#

Software
House

Ebryx

Adress

In
Portf
olio
Office # Yes
1, floor
#
4,
Arfa
softwar
e
technol
ogy
park,

No. of
Projects
2

113

No. of
Project Succes
CEO
Manage
s
Name
rs
Ratio
3-4
100% Ahrar
Naqvi

CEO Email
Address
ahrar@ebryx.co
m

346-B
Ferozpu
r Road,
Lahore

Pakista
n.
ADDVAN Office #
TUM
17,
Floor #
10, Arfa
STP.
Frag
Office #
Games
7, floor
#
4,
Arfa
STP.
Microsoft Office #
Innoation 1,
Centre
Floor #
5, Arfa
STP.
Inbox
Office #
3,
Floor #
5,
Arfa
STP.
Interactiv Office #
e Groups 2,
Floor #
5, Arfa
STP.
Logica
Floor #
Solutions 7, Arfa
STP.
Nespak
Floor #
7,
Arfa
STP.
Tower
Office #

Yes

10-15

10-15

90%

Shahzad
Hamid

yes

6070%

RehmanR
afique

yes

100%

Ziad
Bashir

yes

Local
15-20
level 2,
internatio
nal level
1.

100%

Ghias
Khan

yes

10-15

10

100%

Shahid
Mahmud

yes

2-3

7080%

Usman
Ahmad

yes

2-3

90%

Amjad A.
Khan

yes

5-6

100%

Ajmal

114

rehman@fraggames.com

ajmal@theto

Technolo
gies

1
0

1
1
1
2

1
3
1
4

1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8

4,5
floor #
7, Arfa
STP.
National Office # yes
Engineer 2, floor
s (NETS #
8,
Internati Arfa
oal)
STP.
Loxvo
Floor # yes
Technolo 8, Arfa
gies
STP.
Zero
Office # yes
Billion
12,
floor #
8, Arfa
STP.
Fork
Tech

Floor #
8, Arfa
STP.
Total
Office #
Softwares 19,
Services
floor #
8, Arfa
STP.
Zitech
Floor #
8, Arfa
STP.
Future
Floor #
Technolo 8, Arfa
gies
STP.
ITD
Floor #
Pakistan 8, Arfa
STP.
Rent VM Office #
14,
floor #
8, Arfa
STP.
Mobius
Floor #

Hussain

30

80%

60%

7080%

WaqqasAl Waqqas.alvi@zer
vi
obillion.com

no

Upto 15 3
for small
projects,
2
for
large
projects.
1
1

50%

Noor
Khawaja

nkhawaja@forkp
article.com

yes

3-4

80%

Haseeb
Ali Gill

Haseeb.gill@tota
lsoftwareservices
.com

Yes

4-5

75%

MesbahR
ehan

yes

2-3

60%

yes

70%

yes

6070%

yes

80%

115

Jahangir
Ahmad

wertech.com

Jahangir.ahmad
@netsinternational.com

Networks

2
0

Incubato
rs

2
1

Viper

2
2

Bayt.com

2
3

Seven
Centric

2
4

SoftRove

2
5

ILMA
Soft

2
6

Comcast

2
7

Fast
Services

8, Arfa
STP.
Office #
7, floor
#
8,
Arfa
STP.
Office #
8, floor
#
8,
Arfa
STP.
Office #
20,
floor #
10, Arfa
STP.
Office #
17,
floor #
10, Arfa
STP.
Office #
18,
floor #
10, Arfa
STP.
Office #
15,
floor #
10, Arfa
STP.
Office #
13,
floor #
10, Arfa
STP.
Office #
10,
floor #
10,

yes

10-15

90%

yes

150-200

80%

yes

Above
75%

RabeaAta
ya

yes

5-6

50%

Saad
Mubarak

saad@7centric.c
om

yes

2-3

2-3

100%

Omer
Mukhtar

Omer.mukhtar@
softrove.com

yes

5-6

100%

Syed
Iftikhar
Hussain
Shah

no

100%

Cyrus
cyrusjan@comca
Saood Jan st.net

yes

10

2-3

7080%

Rana
Farooq

116

Hammad
Tariq

Hammad.tariq@i
ncubator.pk

2
8

2
9

3
0

ArfaST
P.
Dell
Office # yes
8, floor
#
10,
Arfa
STP.
GCS Pvt Office # yes
Ltd
7, floor
#
10,
Arfa
STP.
TeraData Floor # yes
15, Arfa
STP

4-5

100%

14-15

Above
90%

ShahidM
uneed

Above
10

10

100%

Khurram
Rahat

117

Khuram.rahat@t
eradata.com

Table 3 Respondents Detail List

Subjects/Responden
ts

Name

1
2

HarisShahid
Farhan Shah
Zaigham Butt

Mirza Asif
Baig
Majid Imtiaz
Waqas Ashraf

Salma N.
Waseem
Muneeb
Syed
FaheemAthar
Imran Naqvi

Jawad

Jahangir
Ahmad
Shahbaz
Ashraf
Fuad Khalid

Masood Abbas

Hasnain Naqvi

10

Hafiz
Zafarullah
Sadaan Saeed

11
12
13

WaqqasAlvi
Noor Khawaja
Haseeb Ali

Company
Name
Inbox
Inbox
Microsoft
innovation
centre
Interactive
Group
Logica IT
Solutions
Logica IT
Solutions
Logica IT
Solutions
Nespak
Tower
Technologies
Tower
Technologies
Tower
Technologies
Nets
International
National
Engineers
Nets
International
Nets
International
Nets
International
Nets
International
Loxvo
Technologies
Zero Billion
Fork Tech
Total Software
118

Email Address
Haris.shahid@inboxbiz.com
Farhan.shah@inboxbiz.com
v-zaikra@microsoft.com

Asif.baig@iacgrp.com
Majid.imtiaz@logicait.pk

moneeb@nespak.co
faheemathar@thetowertech.com

Jahangir.ahmad@netsinternational.com
Shahbaz.ashraf@ne.co.pk
fuad.khalid@nets-international.com
Masood.abbas@netsinternational.com
Hasnain.naqvi@netsinternational.com
Hafiz.zafrullah@netsinternational.com
Sadaan.saeed@loxvo.com
Waqqas.alvi@@zerobillion.com
nkhawaja@forkparticle.com
Haseeb.gill@totalsoftwareservices.c

14
15

16
17

Gill
JawadAmjad
M.Tahir
Tallat
Haider Ali
Turab
Sajjad
Hammad
Tariq Aziz
M.Farhan Ali
Rabia Tariq

18

19
20
21
22
23

24
25

RehmanRafiqu
e
Ammad Aziz
Saad Mubarak
Omar Mukhtar
Usman
M.Irfan
Choudhary
Bashir
Hameed
Sohail Saeed
KhurramRahat

Zitech
Future
Technologies
ITD Pakistan
Rent VM
Mobius
Networks
Incubators
Viper
Ebryx

om
Jawad.amjad@ozitechnology.com
tahir@future.com.pk
tallat@itdpak.com
Haider.turab@rentvm.com
sajjad@mobius.pk
Hammad.tariq@incubator.pk
Tariq.aziz@viper.pk
Farhan.ali@ebryx.com

ADDVANTU
M
Frag Games

Rabia.tariq@addvantum.com

Bayt.com
Seven Centric
SoftRove
ILMA Soft
Fast Services
Dell

Ammad-aziz@bayt.net
saad@7centric.com
Omar.mukhtar@softrove.com
usman@ilmasoft.com
sales@fastservices.pk
Basher_hemeed@dellteam.com

GCS Pvt Ltd

TeraData

Sohail.saeed@gcspvt.com
Khuram.rahat@teradata.com

119

rehman@frag-games.com

Table 4 Questionnaire Coding Details

Sr No #
1
2
2(a)
2(b)
3
3(a)
3(b)
4
4(a)
4(b)
5
6

Scales Name
Role Clarity
Project Portfolio Management
Success
Average Project Success
Strategic Fit
Customer Relationship Value
Relationship Value for the
customers
Relationship Value from the
customers
Supplier Relationship Value
Relationship Value for the
suppliers
Relationship Value from the
suppliers
About Managers
Senior
Management
Involvement

120

Items
1,2,3,4

5,6,7
8,9,10
11, 12, 13, 14
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

22, 23, 24, 25

26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
32 to 53
54 to 60

APPENDIX II
Preliminary Survey Questions

How many projects software house managing at a time?

How many Project managers working in software house at this time?
How many portfolios in software House?
How many projects manage in one portfolio?
How many portfolio managers in software house?
What is the specialty of software house?

121

APPENDIX III
INSTRUMENTS (Questionnaire for data collection)

122

COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY,

LAHORE

Dear Respondent,
I am student of MS (Project Management) in COMSATS Institute of Information and
Technology. I want to conduct research on impact of Stakeholder's engagement on
Project Portfolio Management Success, in IT sector Lahore, Pakistan. It would be highly
appreciated, if you spare some time from your busy schedule to answer few questions
mentioned below. Your response will be kept confidential. I will be very thankful to you
for your cooperation.

123

Software House Name / Title: ..................................

Designation of the Respondent: ......................................
Gender:

a) Male

b) Female

Total Work Experience: (in years)

a) Up to 2

b) 2 - 6 c) 6 - 10 d) above 10

Work Experience of managing project portfolios: (in years)

a) Up to 2

b) 2 - 6 c) 6 -10

d) above 10

Team Strength: (Members)

a) Less than 50

b) 50-100 c) 100-200 d)Above 200

Annual Revenue: (optional)

a) Up to 1$ million

b) Between 1-2$ million c) Above 2$ million

Duration of existence of Software House: (in years)

a) Less than 2

b) 2 4

c) 4 6

d) Above 6

Specialty of Software House:

a) Databases

b) Mobile apps c) Websites d) Multiple Technologies

e) Others
Span of Software House:
a) Within Pakistan
World Wide

b) Within Subcontinent

c)

Within Asia

d) Across the

CMMI Ranking: (To be applied)

a) Level 1

b) Level 2

c) Level 3

d) Level 4 e) Level 5

Software House Certifications:

a) ISO certified

b) IEEE certified

c) Others .
124

Software House Clients:

a) International b) National

c) Local

d) Others

Number of Portfolios:

a) Less than 2 b) 2-4

c) 4-6

Number of projects in one portfolio:

a) 2-4

b) 4-6

c) 6-8

d) above 8

Number of projects lead successfully:

a) 2-4

b) 4-6

c) 6-8

d) above 8

Number of Project Portfolio Managers: a) Less than 2 b) 2-4 c) 4-6

Number of Project Managers:

a) Less than 2

b) 2-4

c) 4-6

d) above 6

d) Above 6
d) Above 6

Project Worth: (optional)

a) Less than 1 million

b) Between 1 & 2 million c) More than 2 million

Information is given about:

a) Top Manager
Manager
Sr.
No.
1.

b) Line Manager

Items

Strongly
Disagree

c)

Project Portfolio Manager d) Project

Disagree

The task of PPM

actors is clearly
defined.
The task of PPM
actors is clearly
differentiated.
Every task within
PPM is performed
only by the
persons
responsible for this
task.
PPM tasks are
performed by
redundantly by
several parties.
On average, our
125

Neither
Agree nor
Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

10

11
12

13

14

15

16

projects have high

schedule
adherence.
On average, our
projects have high
budget adherence.
On average, our
projects have high
quality adherence.
Our project
portfolio is
consistently
oriented toward the
firms future.
The corporate
strategy is
implemented in the
optimal way.
The allocation of
resources to
projects reflects
our strategic
behavior.
We fulfill needs of
our customers.
Our customers are
very satisfied with
our output.
Problems
encountered by our
customers are
quickly solved.
We do anything to
be a trustful
partner for our
customers.
Most of our
customers are
long-term.
Most of our
customers are
reliable.
126

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26

Our customers
actively engage in
value creation.
Our customers
provide us with
essential
information on the
market and / or
competitors.
Our customers
actively promote
us at other
potential
customers due to
the quality of our
output.
Our customers
contribute
substantial ideas
for new projects.
Our customers
provide us
information on
potential
customers.
We fulfill needs of
our suppliers.
Our suppliers are
very satisfied with
our orders which
we give to them.
Problems
encountered by our
suppliers are
quickly being
handled.
Most of our
suppliers are longterm.
Most of our
suppliers are
127

reliable.
27
Our suppliers
actively engage in
value creation.
28
Our suppliers
provide us with
essential
information on the
competitors.
29
Our suppliers
actively promote
us at other
potential suppliers
due to the quality
of our orders.
30
Our suppliers
contribute
substantial ideas
for new projects.
31
Our suppliers
provide us
information on
potential market.
32
Is always
seeking
new
opportun
ities for
the
unit/depa
rtment/
organizat
ion
33
Paints an
interesting
picture of the
future for our
group.
34

Has a clear
understanding
128

35

of where we
are going.
Inspires others
with his/her
plans for the
future.

36

Is able to get
others
committed to
his/her dreams
of the
future.

37

Leads by
doing rather
than simply by
telling.
Provides a
good model to
follow.
Leads by
example.
Fosters
collaboration
among work
groups.
Encourages
employees to
be team
players.

38

39
40

41

42

Gets the group

to work
together for
the same goal.

43

Develops a
team attitude
and spirit
among his/her
129

44

45

46

47

48

employees
Shows us that
he/she expects
a lot from us.
Insists on only
the best
performance.
Will not settle
for second
best.
Acts without
considering my
feelings.
Shows respect
for my
personal
feelings.

49

Behaves in a
manner that is
thoughtful of
my personal
needs.

50

Treats me
without
considering my
personal
feelings.
Has provided
me with new
ways of looking
at things which
used to be a
puzzle for me.
Has ideas that
have forced me
to think some
of my own
ideas I have

51

52

130

53

54

55

56

57

never
questioned
before.
Has stimulated
me to think
about old
problems in
new
ways.
Our senior
management
has expert
knowledge in
multi-project
and project
portfolio
management.
Our senior
management
invests a lot of
time in
steering the
project
portfolio.
Our senior
management
makes
sufficient
human and
financial
resources
available for
the steering of
the project
portfolio
Our senior
management
adheres to the
official process
131

58

59

60

and to its own

rules during
project
portfolio
management.
Our senior
management
delivers
decisions
timely when
problem
situations arise
or escalation is
required.
Our senior
management
feels
responsible for
the success of
the project
portfolio
management.
On the whole,
our senior
management
supports the
project
portfolio
management

132